Re: [Apt-proxy-users] endless recycling

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

On Monday 31 Jan 2005 19:55, Jonathan Koren wrote:
> I don't think I was rude.  If you took offense, I'm sorry.  

Thanks

> I'm not saying 
> "You suck!".  I am saying "It appears the design you have come up with is
> unnecessarily complicated in this respect.  

It isn't the design of those who are working on the project.  We just 
inherited it.

> Furthermore, here is an 
> alternate design that fulfils what little understand of the requirements I
> have, and eliminates the complications I am critical of, 
> results in what appears to be a more robust design."  

The ideas are good but they do ignore the two use cases I mentioned that were 
the primary reasons for the existence of the database (noatime mounts and 
unwanted updating of atime by other programs).

> I didn't direct 
> criticism at anyone.  There's a big difference between calling an idea
> dumb, and calling someone dumb.  They are two very seperate things.

It was the tone of your reply to my mail that I didn't appreciate.  The 
implemention of the idea is not mine, and IMO it is more the problem of the 
implementation than the concept itself.  If the recycling actually worked 
properly then I'm not convinced there would still be a need to change the 
concept.  Or do you think that even with the recycling mechanism working, 
that the database concept is wrong?  (The idea was to add more information to 
those databases in the future, such as a better way ensuring that files in 
the cache are intact)

> That said, just because someone spends their copious amounts of free time
> writing software, doesn't make them infallible.  It just means they have a
> hobby.

And means ranty's implementation can't be fixed as quick as we would like to.  

Chris