Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM
2007/11/19, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:16:59PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I completely disagree that the personal preference of a programming
> > language should dictate the technical means we should choose. I'm
> > really happy that James does not prefer say PL/I and we would be forced
> > to clone an existing software in this or any other language.
>
> Well, I'm really happy that you can't write something in PL/I and force
> me to use it to do my work, too. It goes both ways.
Wrong. We are talking not about _you_ or a single person, but a group
that should use and continue development. I see no reason why this
group should adopt to the programming habits of a single person. It
sounds like we are to much used to the idea that there is a chair that
is occupied by a single person. If there are existing tools that might
solve a problem we should not ask the person that is sitting on a
specific chair whether he likes the programming language the tool
is written in. If the wool works and we are perfectly able to form a
group that has one or two members that are competent in this
programming language it is perfectly the way we should go.
> I don't see the point in rewriting jetring in python (or doing anything to
> convince James he should be using) at the moment, because I think it needs
> to be tested in a more controlled situation first. Compared to testing
> and proving the concept, though, a rewrite in python seems less effort
> than arguing about it.
Sure. But have you ever met a "normal" person that thinks programming
geeks are a very strange flavour of mankind because they tend to replace
working thing A by another thing B doing the same job just because they do
not like the programming language of A. I'm afraid those "normal" people
have a point.
> Though of course, I'm personally a bit biassed
> towards trusting python programs more than mixtures of bash and perl, too.
If there wouldn't be a solution I would start with Python. If there is a
working solution that would fit my needs I would use it.
> You've seen my comments on this, and presumably my references to mails
> about James views (both my explanation [0] and his [1]). Doesn't that already
> show that there're others besides James who judge similarly, and that
> James has shared his knowledge?
>
> [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00204.html
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00226.html
Well, this [1] is quite exactly to years old and says:
I think in the long term, keyring maintenance should obviously be done
by more than one person.
and thus raises the question in what scale "long term" is meant. The
continuos discussion shows that a status report every second year might
be a nice thing to have to keep fellow developers who deserve a certain
level of information up to date.
> > > - having more people able to do each thing (eg, more DAMs,
> > > or making it easier for multiple AMs or other DDs to help an
> > > individual applicant progress)
> > Isn't this the point of this thread? Isn't the reason why this is not
> > implemented for several years clearly detected?
>
> AFAICS it seems much more about expanding the powers and
> responsibilities of one individual than distributing them amongst
> multiple individuals. That comes under "removing dependencies" or
> "making it easier", not adding more people.
I admit I do not understand this deduction.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: