Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:27:38
Message-Id: 4AD0E01E.50205@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12 by Ulrich Mueller
1 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
2 >>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote:
3 >
4 >> 3. Preservation of file modification times
5 >> - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
6 >> - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
7 >> among PM developers on how to best approach this
8 >
9 > Actually, my request was more explicit:
10 >
11 > If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it
12 > should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]:
13 >
14 > A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved
15 > B: optional update of "old" mtimes
16 > C: mandatory update
17 >
18 > Could you add this to the agenda please?
19 >
20 > Ulrich
21 >
22 > [1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26>
23 >
24
25 1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never happened.
26 Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again?
27
28 2. Progress report of EAPI 3 implementation
29
30 3. Preservation of file modification times
31 - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
32 - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
33 among PM developers on how to best approach this
34 - If accepted vote on how to implement it
35 * Possible approaches: http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26
36
37 4. Open discussion
38
39 Regards,
40 Petteri

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature