mesa-lib

[v4hn]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:31:36AM -0700, Auke Kok wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 02:42 AM, v4hn wrote:
> >Please explain your reasoning behind this decision,
> >because I have absolutely no idea why you did this.
> 
> [...]
> Let's face it, we would be a lot better off if people talked more to
> each other.

Yes we would and I'm sure everyone agrees on that.
What zbiggy, florin and I as well criticize, isn't that people talk to much!
It's that 90% of all recent commits are done by the three of us,
but a lot more people talk and discuss.

Talking alone doesn't keep the distribution alive either,
except we want to become Slackware(and even they do more bugfix releases
than we would without zbiggy/florin).

> A small community like lunar is built on communication, and whenever
> I ask people to do something, or comment on an issue, there are a
> few people out here that immediately accuse people of .... talking.

I'm sorry, but that's plain wrong imho.
Nobody accused people of talking and I'm quite sure zbiggys
choice of the word "jabbers" wasn't meant to sound like that.
There are a lot of people who prefer a well tested moonbase
instead of the current one, because they don't want to "play janitors"
and fix newly introduced mistakes.
As zbiggy wrote in his later mails the stable branch is supposed
to fix this problem by introducing changes to stable only after a
given time elapsed or a number of developers approved the change.
But nobody cared about stable and everyone kept using moonbase
and keeps complaining about those mistakes. THAT'S what I complain about.
In my opinion the three main reasons for that are (1.) stable isn't
the default and people are lazy (2.) you(auke) said you dislike
the idea of another branch and would come up with another more usable
concept in near future(this concept isn't ready 'til now, and I'm not sure
this will work out because of missing manpower).
(3.) the gate between stable and moonbase isn't defined clearly
and no one volunteered to be gate keeper(although everyone with
commits is allowed to do that theoretically).

> I'd like for more technical discussion to happen, instead of
> circumstantial commenting.
> 
> A lot of replies on the list recently have lost any value due to the
> high level of noise vs. content ratio.

I completely agree, and zbiggy did as well in one of his mails.
So I still don't get the reasons behind your decision...

Instead of just fixing the mesa-lib code by authority
we started discussing the same old story all over again
and the module still looks the same except for _zbiggys fixes_.
(Although I agree the module is not fixed yet)
Also it would be an absolutly reasonable compromise to
set the _default_ choices based on the systems architecture.


v4hn
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://foo-projects.org/pipermail/lunar-dev/attachments/20120621/bb48fb07/attachment.bin>