Hi Chris, Sorry for the delay in replying. Having a few reliability problems with my broadband atm.
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 08:59 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > I thought your proposal was to get critical information to our users, > not force every user to read that $dev is going to be in $country from > $date1 to $date2. This seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. I've just gone back and checked my original blog posting, and I definitely didn't say anything about limiting news delivered via Portage in any way. > this, then I change my opinion on supporting this proposal, as I surely > don't give a damn about some dev meet in the UK that I would never be > able to attend and *definitely* don't want that *shoved* down my throat > by the tree. That's twice now you've had a pop at the UK meetings in this thread. If there's some problem with the meetings that you'd like to get off your chest, you could take it up with me on IRC or any of the other UK devs. The events I've been involved in organising have been events for users, and they've always been put together by both developers and users. I believe that some of our users *are* interested in exactly this type of news - and, from the enquiries I've had in the past, not just UK-based people. Maybe we should add the ability to filter news based on some sort of geographical setting too? That'd be a reasonable thing to add to the GLEP I think. > I also noticed how you lost context in my quote by the way > you quoted it. Thanks. FFS, chill out, or even better come and talk to me on IRC about this chip you seem to have on your shoulder in our recent dealings. I've no idea what it is that I've done to upset you atm, but I don't think that here and bugzilla are the places for it. > > I think that's a worthy goal, but looking around, it looks to me that > > software design just doesn't work like that in real life. Designs have > > to adapt and change as time passes, not just implementations. > > Really? I work with quite a few developers where I work. We have > meetings. During these meetings, requirements are hashed out to cover > the scope of the project. The code is then written to the > specifications. If a later change is made into the requirements, then > another meeting takes place, and a change request is agreed upon and > scheduled. They sure as hell don't let the requirements slip otherwise, > or they would end up in the ever-developing and never-completing world. And, equally, the Portage tree is full of examples of software that has not been developed this way. I'm not saying that it's not a valid engineering practice; but it's not the only way in the world that software gets developed. But anyway - we were talking about design, not requirements. Although obviously related, I've always seen them as being different things. > We're talking about a *very* simple set of things that need to be > developed here. Why *would* we even consider not laying out the > requirements up front? I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. You're talking about requirements now, but my comment that you're responding to was about the design, which I would normally treat as being different to requirements. I agree that it's simple. But I also think that, once we're using it, we'll learn from that experience and want to make changes. I may not be the best practitioner of it, but I am a great believer in the F/OSS way of release early, release often. As a community, we don't seem to have done too badly out of that approach. Best regards, Stu -- Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/ GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
