On 3/10/2022 14:44, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >>> >>> I wouldn't block anyone from doing this, but it's not something I'm >>> personally interested in pursuing. I see very little value here. >> >> First, you're trying to justify replacing repoman on an entirely subjective >> opinion of "I think <foo> is superior" ... > > Well, if you've ever tried it you'll notice that <foo> for <foo> != repoman > actually finishes the checks within a finite amount of time. Kind of, the > most blatant argument for ditching repoman, actually.
If this is a concern for some, has anyone looked into whether repoman can be fixed to be more efficient? If so, how was the determination made that it cannot be fixed and instead, needs to be replaced? It's been around for 20+ years. Surely someone has gotten annoyed enough to look at any issues it has and attempt to fix them? That said, I'm not terribly bothered by it. It is slow, don't get me wrong, but it's not slow enough that my workflow is significantly impacted. It catches most of the mistakes I've ever made before I make them so that I can fix them. For me, that's job well done. -- Joshua Kinard Gentoo/MIPS ku...@gentoo.org rsa6144/5C63F4E3F5C6C943 2015-04-27 177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943 "The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." --Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic
