On 10/12/17 00:27, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > Adding extraneous flags as a political decision to deviate from upstream > defaults is itself a side effect. We will not do this without > significantly more justification than "I dislike how it looks and don't > want to write my own config file". In the truest spirit of Arch Linux, > we would like "defaults suck and no one can read this garbage" to be > fixed upstream, while Arch users will likely read the manpage and set > their own configuration (though I personally encourage switching to > htop, which not only fixed my gripe with top, but turned out to be the > process viewer I hadn't realized I was missing). I thought that e.g. accessibility and user experience was greater justification than "I dislike it". Granted it's not the raison d'etre of Arch but with such a small commitment/maintenance burden I honestly couldn't see the harm in it. If I could I wouldn't have bothered with any of this. > You said "top sucks, let me list the reasons why I don't like it". This > is no better! > > Turning a gripe into a bulleted list of gripes does not constitute > migrating from a gripe to a "proposal"; being a "proposal" says nothing > whatsoever about its status as a technical merit vs. political change. Providing an implementation with rationale (whether or not you agree with it) is definitely not "griping". If someone submitted a PR which changed code you wouldn't call it political. This is no different. > So we'd have to look at the *content* of your proposal... and there we > hit into the issue that you just responded to by claiming that "OMG it's > a proposal not a gripe" without actually saying anything. I don't know what else you want. I remember (in another life) someone saying "unless someone has a substantive reason", which really meant "unless there's something involving money". Anything else wasn't "valid". In this case... I don't honestly know. What could/should have been a quick discussion has moved into what's approaching a philosophical discussion, which certainly wasn't my intention. > Namely, you agree it is subjective but want to argue about whether > everyone agrees with your subjective opinion. But... Arch does not and > never has and never will care about peoples' subjective opinions merely > for the sake of subjective opinions. We expect people to read manpages > and configure software for themselves. We don't add changes to upstream > except for clearly defined reasons, and configuring things on behalf of > the user is not one of these reasons. > > So excuse me, but in what possible world did you either file that > bugreport or start this discussion thread with the belief that you had > any chance whatsoever of getting this changed? This whole issue > approaches the level of a deliberate spam comment... "If you have a question regarding Arch development, please ensure that your topic poses a specific question and be open-minded to responses. If possible, provide a solution or partial solution. Submitting code and patches for discussion is always more pragmatic than asking others to do it for you." > and given that you are *that* jonathon, I am not going to buy ignorance as an excuse. Thank you. > Awesome! So happy that a mutually satisfactory outcome was obtained! I'm glad the discussion was productive, sarcasm aside. J
