El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 12:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió: > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:52:24 +0200 > Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > bring this to the point where we can say something other than > > > "huh?". > > > > You can accelerate by making one guess about each thing on the list > > and asking for confirmation of your guess. > > > > It sounds silly, but I realized that this actually happens all the > > time offline - at least to me. I interpret, ask if I got it right, > > then move on. It's pretty efficient, but requires both sender and > > receiver wanting successful transmission. > > The issue is not that we don't understand the list. The issue is that > we don't understand the problem (beyond superficially), how the > proposed solution works from an ebuild perspective, whether the > solution solves the problem, or how it all fits together. Most of the > stuff on the list is irrelevant from a design perspective. It's not > that the list is hard to understand, it's that understanding the > problem and solution requires completely different material. > > To take one example, figuring out exactly which variables get mangled > is an unimportant detail at this stage (and likely we'll want to > offload it to profiles, not hard-code it in PMS) and not a central part > of the proposal. > > What we need is a GLEP, describing it in high level terms with a > discussion upon how it impacts users and ebuild developers, and a PMS > patch, highlighting what's to be changed in specific technical terms. >
What we *also* need is to document this requirements to let people present that work directly instead of losing days figuring out what is needed or what not
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
