Quote: Ahmad Samir wrote on Sat, 18 December 2010 15:30
> That's exactly what a ML is for, parallel discussions each ideally > contained in a thread of its own; that's what I was pointing out. Sure, I was just suggesting an alternative in case this ML becomes too high-traffic, I guess we all know that high traffic MLs are not very efficient, posts get lost in the noise. > To put things in perspective, here's what Michael said: > "And secondary, I think we should also try to avoid having too much > task- > rpms. Their values is in the fact they allow to quickly install a set > of > rpm without searching in the whole set of rpm. > > If there is too much of them, people while end searching in the > various > task-* rpms, and that seems counter productive at best. > ( ie, searching the task rpm they want to avoid searching rpm they > want > directly ... )." > > Doesn't look dismissive to me, he stated rather clearly why he's > against having too many task/meta packages. I consider it very dismissive and furthermore the argument that too many task-rpms are confusing is pointless (one more task rpm doesn't mean too many and who is to decide what's too many, how long is a piece of string?) and very dismissive (a volunteer and new poster offering to do something that other users will appreciate immediately get's confronted with the exagerated argument that what he wants to do will cause too much clutter...). Anyway, like I said I think we should be following more the principle of 'live and let live' rather than 'lowest common denominator' here. -- Mageia ML Forum Gateway: http://mageia.linuxtech.net/forum/