foser wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 22:58 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote: > >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>Luca Barbato schrieb: >> >>>Stephen P. Becker wrote: >>> >>> >>>>alpha++ >>> >>> >>>alpha++ >>> >> >>once again, alpha++ > > > It's not a vote, it's a discussion. You guys--.
Whoever said we were voting? I was just showing my support for alphabetical keyword ordering. Remember, alphabetical keywording is *already* implemented in ekeyword, and we are discussing whether or not to revert it. foser-- > > As vapier indicates he's the whole reason this ever became a problem. He > was the one who started arbitrarily ordering keywords around creating a > keywords mess for people who did depend on order to perform tasks. I > guess the lesson here is if you just do things 'your way' (wr/l)ong > enough, people pick it up and it spreads. If everyone starts using ekeyword now with the alphabetical ordering built in, everything will be consistent, and there shouldn't be a problem. > > The point is that with his reordering implicit information was lost for > no particular purpose. There was no added value in ordering keywords, > there's was no reason whatsoever to make the ordering inconsistent > within packages, it was an utterly pointless exercise in creating more > traffic on the servers. I guess by "creating more traffic" you mean the one time when updating the ebuilds with the new ordering during rsync for each user. Even if this is significant over the whole tree, once everything is updated with keyword ordering and everyone has done an emerge sync, there won't be any more trouble, and we can just stay happy with the consistent alphabetical ordering enforced by ekeyword. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
