4 ms·

(In this subthread it is just github because we were discussing enabling parallelism for github only. The terminal proposal meant "keep it single thread for CI"

• woodruffw 1y ago
  Okay. The problem is still present in the GH case, although to a lesser extent. These kinds of complications on a "same experience for everyone" flow are also nontrivial: single-threading on CI is hard to explain to users who see very fast local installs and slow CI installs - the latter costs them extra money! - and complicates the story with mirrors, download groups that include non-GH origins, etc. That's not to say it's impossible; as linked in another thread, it's something that's being actively worked on. But I think it should be understandable why "just parallelize it and you're wrong/stupid/lazy because you haven't already" is neither a contextualized or charitable response.
  • SonOfLilit 1y ago
    I agree that the brew devs are not stupid or lazy (as can be seen by the great popularity of the tool they developed among the complaining demographic). I suspect they are wrong in this specific care based on the "every other package manager solved this" heuristic, but I have no doubt this is not a straightforward issue. Personally, I dropped the case after offering to send a PR and getting back a "we won't accept this, it's not because we didn't think of it, from where we're standing it's a bad idea". They may or may not be wrong, but X am definitely wrong here, knowing almost nothing about it.