weasel at beyondnormal.org
Wed Jul 14 08:28:52 PDT 2004
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 20:56 -0400, Brian Beattie wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 17:25, jeremy at jutley.org wrote:
> > I still do NOT understand what people have against IRC!!!! There's no
> > communication medium where it's easier to talk things out. And Matt, by
> > staying away from IRC, you're isolating yourself from a relatively large
> > contingent of the community. I DO NOT like discussing things on Mailing
> > lists, because:
> > a) It takes too long to get feedback
> > b) active interaction sucks, so you can't get clarification
> IRC requires everybody be in a compatible timezone and has no history.
It doesn't need history. Most of what goes on in IRC are small changes
that require hundreds of back and forth comments that would take a month
on a mailing list. Its not as if anyone pops into #be-lfs suggest a
major change and suddenly it commited. Besides even if that did happen,
it would happen in unstable, where that type of thing is acceptable.
Now that testing is available the community can debate until they are
blue in the face. They can pick the book apart and put everything to a
I'm not always in IRC, yet I manage to keep relativly up to date on
unstable developments. I rarely get info about recent changes from IRC
actually. When I want to know whats going on, I check the changelog and
read the book itself. When I see something I don't understand, then I
ask in IRC. Why IRC? Because I prefer it to mailing list...i'm
impatient as all hell. I got to IRC not cause its the only source of
info about unstable, but because its my preferred source. If you for
example prefer mailing list, then you could ask you question here. All
the people that frequent IRC for the most part are on the list and
I still don't understand the argument that the devs need to keep you and
others updated as to what they are doing all the time!? If you want to
know more about what's going on, then stop being lazy, read the book,
and stop waiting for everyone to send you the cliff notes.
I think the general fear is that what ever goes into unstable will
undoubtably end up as part of stable. While this is likely true,
certainly not a rule. The whole point to having the testing branch is
so that everyone in the community gets a chance to review and have say
in what is included. The whole purpose to having unstable was so the
devs could have a place to be completly experimental and work at their
own pace, by their own standards. So far they have not been able to do
this. Why anyone would want to only slow the project I don't know, but
I do know that the devs for the most part are tired and frusterated, and
that why they are leaving...errr...being driven away. As soon as being
a dev starts to feel like a job they are going to undoubtably leave.
Who the in the hell wants an unpaid job. Like wise as long as the devs
are having fun at what they are doing, they will stay and the project
will flourish. There are a lot of very bright and talented people
involved with LFS, and its really sad to see them being driven away by
Anyway, I'm done...the more I write, the more pissed off I get...*sigh*
> > If the community wants to shut out IRC, let me know - I'll shut down the
> > IRC servers and we can go on about our merry way.
> > -J-
> Brian Beattie LFS12947 | "Honor isn't about making the right choices.
> beattie at beattie-home.net | It's about dealing with the consequences."
> www.beattie-home.net | -- Midori Koto
"Nothing is fool-proof to a sufficiently talented fool."
More information about the lfs-dev