On Sunday, 16 December 2012 at 07:35:27 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
I shouldn't be here explaining why this is wrong, you should be
here explaining me why it can be applied anyway.
We are developing a process, specifying what it will look like.
If I'm building an airplane and say I think it should be kind of
like a car, I'd expect your response would be.
You can't build an airplane with wheels, windshield, and a cabin
for passengers. Cars have those and meant for driving on the
ground with very sticked adherence to the laws of gravity.
What I expect you to say, we shouldn't be building an airplane,
helicopters are much better at traveling and landing in tight
places and that is what we need. Airplanes are good for when we
need long distance.
Instead I hear, plans are good for long distance we shouldn't
build them.
Otherwise, anyone can come with any point, whatever how stupid
it is, and each time we have to prove that person wrong. When
you come with something, you have to explain why it make sens,
not the other way around.
We have explained why it makes sense, the goals are already up on
the wiki.
So you should review those goals and explain why the plan does
not meet those, or correct the goals. You are doing neither.
Back to the point, and it will be the last time. A distro is a
set of programs. The goal of the distro is to provide a set of
programs, as up to date as possible, that integrate nicely with
each other, and with as few bugs as possible. Some of these
goals are in conflict, so we see different pattern emerge, with
different tradeoff, as ubuntu and debians's processes.
I said you don't have to repeat yourself.
