On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 20:04, David Leverton <levert...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> If anyone's been personal and insulting in this discussion, it isn't > Ciaran. > I'll take that as an April Fools' day joke. > As for the topic: the only real concern about VALID_USE that I've seen from > anyone is about whether Portage can implement it reasonably soon. Since > some > people think it can, how about picking some reasonable time period > (allowing > for bikeshedding about the syntax, of course), and if VALID_USE isn't > supported in Portage by then but EAPI 4 is otherwise ready then we postpone > VALID_USE until later? > Here's another suggestion: how about we don't impose any ridiculous constraints on development and keep this discussion on the technological side of the original proposal? If the only concerns are about the time it will take to implement, then this suggestion must be perfect in all aspects and so we should probably wait until it's done, even if is takes a loooong time! I really like this attitude, though. Once you're done criticizing the technological aspects of some proposal you start raising concerns about how hard it is to implement features for Portage, how long that takes, etc. Well, since that's not really constructive, I suggest you keep those concerns to yourself. Dror Levin
