1 |
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:56:26 +0000 |
2 |
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> it isn't a "mistaken impression". Both Joshua and me think there are |
4 |
> alternatives and that the choice to put profiles/* under EAPI was |
5 |
> unfortunate and should be reviewed. |
6 |
|
7 |
Why were those alternatives never expressed? Why were your objections |
8 |
not raised at the time, and why have you never explained what you think |
9 |
is wrong with it or what you think a better option would be? |
10 |
|
11 |
> It's also my opinion that what the council approved was the use of a |
12 |
> EAPI file under each profile to mark the type of atoms that can be |
13 |
> used in the profile files (slots, etc). |
14 |
|
15 |
What the council agreed upon is not a matter of opinion. The council |
16 |
agreed to introduce EAPI control to profiles/. This was in no way |
17 |
limited to "the types of atoms that can be used", and the wording and |
18 |
design were very deliberately constructed *not* to limit the changes to |
19 |
those kinds of things. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |