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 |