On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 06:35:22PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2007 19:18:28 +0200 > Maurice van der Pot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd say, let the user decide based on the properties > > Too complicated. Bombarding the user with pointless alternatives is not > the same as giving the user choice.
I'm not sure why this is a reply to my message instead of the message I replied to. They both provide more or less the same choice to the user. > I'm also highly sceptical that the properties you listed are boolean. > Resource hungry on an IP22 could be a walk in the park for an X16... I suppose that's possible, but if you look at it like that probably everything can be called resource hungry on some machines. And if you own a Blue Gene, you probably don't worry too much and enable everything. Or do you mean that for instance tests involving lots of floating point calculations are a big deal for cpus that use FP emulation? Isn't that peanuts compared to the tests that would be called resource hungry here? We wouldn't have to prove to anyone that a test is resource hungry. We would just have to put each set of tests into one of two groups. If you're not sure in which group it belongs, it probably doesn't matter that much anyway. Look at merge times... everybody agrees openoffice, mozilla firefox, gcc and qt take quite some time to emerge and that vim, bash and iptables do not. That's the kind of distinction that would be useful. > > fex: > Please don't abuse the English language in that manner. Since you took the time to highlight this apparently grave injustice to the English language, would you please explain it to me so I can do better next time? Maurice. -- Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kfk4ever.com
pgpHou3xcVjwv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
