Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my!

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:06:22PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
 > On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
 > 
 > > On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
 > 
 > > > People just don't care about how mature an option is if they need
 > > > a driver/feature.  *No-one* is going to come across options and
 > > > think "Oh, the driver for my network card isn't stable. Guess I'll
 > > > not enable it". And the idea of hiding the options behind multiple
 > > > levels of maturity options sounds completely batshit.
 > 
 > by the way and just for the record, dave, you have the above
 > completely backwards.  the default for what you would be allowed to
 > select or deselect would be *everything*.  what this whole maturity
 > level thing would allow you to do is selectively *deselect* (or
 > *filter*) what is displayed.  in short, if you do nothing, you see no
 > effect.

>From your earlier mail..

"all this new construct is doing is implementing a new way to globally
 select or de-select large sets of kernel features to display for user
 selection, in exactly the way that EXPERIMENTAL does it now, that's all."
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EXPERIMENTAL hides options.

 > so i don't mind folks criticizing the proposal.  but it sure would be
 > nice if they understood what they were criticising, know what i mean?

Quite.

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk