On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 21:22 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 13:08 -0500, Dan Williams a écrit : > > > If you architect a system that accounts for networking changing states, > > then it works for *everyone*. If you depend on networking always being > > there, then it only works for some subset of users that have one type of > > installation. Having one architecture and one codebase (that handles > > both cases) generally means easier maintenance, feature addition, and > > fewer bugs. > > Really, the problem with hardware handling changes in Fedora those past > years is not improved handling of changing states (which benefit every > kind of system), it's the way all those changes have been progressively > tied with the desktop session, and all the efforts to shut down > everything when no one is moving the local mice, or to make every > scenario single-device stopping the old one when a new 'better' one > appears. This is very vague and generally seems like an attempt to attack as much as possible without providing any specifics that can be discussed. Specifically, though, I see "and all the efforts to shut down > everything when no one is moving the local mice", which reads like a reference to the recent 30-minute suspend timeout, which for about the fiftieth time *was simply a bug in a gsettings schema*, nothing more sinister. It's already been fixed. Please stop referring to it as if it's some sort of Grand Conspiracy. It is not. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
