On Sep 6, 2012 10:18 AM, "Michael Orlitzky" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 09/05/2012 05:29 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> > Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane.
> >> and isn't a compromise at all.
> > I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required
> > outcome of this. *Given the choice between something productive, and
> > something not productive, you don't choose the quasi-productive
> > solution.
> From a developer's perspective, it's obviously better to be able to do
> whatever you want. But for users it'd be nice to be able to request a
> bump to EAPI5 and not get told to buzz off.
> Some people are unhappy with the current situation or this thread
> wouldn't exist. A good compromise should make everyone just a little bit
> unhappy =)
Open source is built on scratching your own itch.* As I said, you want eapi5 for user patching, either you're on the devs prioritization, or you do it yourself.* You may not like that fact, but that *is* reality- filing nagging tickets isn't really going to help (more likely to piss people off in the same way zero-day tickets do).
Suggest you put effort towards eapi5 rather than this thread; the thread isn't productive any longer (arguing the point when people have said no in full force is pointless).