[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] initscripts changes

Jason Chu jason at archlinux.org
Mon Apr 7 18:09:39 EDT 2008

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 01:52:21PM +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> RedShift schrieb:
>>>> You guys just don't get it. This is about _principle_.
>>> YOUR principle.
>> Yes, and guess where I got them from. Arch, 3 years ago.

> There is in fact a valid reason why we should not hardcode devpts and I am 
> thinking of dropping the thought, but none of you even cared to bring it 
> up, instead you bitch about your weird principles, which you claim to be 
> Arch's principles, insulting developers and being an ass on the way.   I am 
> following KISS and trying to make things simpler, while you want to keep 
> things more complicated, because you think that's what Arch is about.

This discussion has actually helped me think through something.  The entire
thread is pretty much an argument about principle.

Thomas suggested we do something a different way because he thought it
would be better (though maybe he wasn't explicit about the reason).  Glenn
argued against it because of principle, not because there was any practical
reason not to do it.

I think principle does have a place to guide certain things, such as
how to package software.  But really it's a guideline, not something to be
applied dogmatically.

Especially when the thing in question is something that we control totally.
No one tells you how to write initscripts or distributes official linux
initscripts.  It's our discretion as to how to improve/develop things.

In the future, I think it's better not to talk about what should be done,
but talk about why it's being done.  Something like, "I'm going to do
something because I can't think of a reason why anyone would want to do it
like this and it will improve things like this.  Can anyone think of a
problem with doing it this way?"  That way the discussion is about problems
with the proposed solution instead of what the principle behind the change
is.  The change is proposed to improve something, not out of malice, and it
should be treated as such.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20080407/22b957b7/attachment.pgp>

More information about the arch-general mailing list