On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:30:25 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 23:18:31 +0100 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 00:13:41 +0200 > > > If you care, then you should consider finding a good solution > > > which will fix the code now, instead of saying 'it is illegal' > > > and 'we can fix it in an awful way in next 10 years'. > > > > EAPI 5 doesn't appear to be 10 years off. And there are several good > > solutions, all of which have been discussed previously. The best is > > to write smaller, less convoluted eclasses that don't mix > > functionality and overriding default functions. > > And what can I do about it? People want it this way.
You can help people write smaller, less convoluted eclasses that don't mix functionality and overriding default functions. > Rationale should be written by the person writing the spec, don't you > know? It's your words, so your rationale. Your duty. The general impression I get is that most people would rather we spent time on functionality and accuracy rather than history. Most people are content with "the Council says so" as the rationale, and are happy to restrict their queries to polite requests for historical discussion on interesting topics every now and again (and those that aren't also seem intent upon disagreeing with everything else in the spec anyway). You are of course welcome to propose to the Council that they require detailed historical background for every part of the spec, and then do your duty in writing it up if they agree. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
