On Tue, 7 May 2019 13:42:05 -0400 Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 5/3/19 11:41 AM, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2019 11:32:57 -0400 Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Apparently, he *really* thinks that that is a bad idea and an inferior mesa-git experience.
And apparently the mesa developers disagree. Remember how this thread started.
This logic is automatically invalid, no ifs ands or buts.
Your argument is that is makes for an unacceptable mesa experience. The experience intended by upstream is EXTREMELY valid.
Upstream developers *by definition* have different priorities from downstream users. Furthermore, the world is full of projects run by upstreams who have unrealistic and sometimes ridiculous expectations; anyone who has packaged a lot of software should know this.
If the mesa developers disagree, that's fine. But it doesn't actually mean anything. What would mean something is their rationale for disagreeing. Just like any other upstream software.
So how upstream intends their software to work doesn't mean anything? Try again.