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
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote: > >> 3. Preservation of file modification times >> - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release >> - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus >> among PM developers on how to best approach this > > Actually, my request was more explicit: > > If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it > should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]: > > A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved > B: optional update of "old" mtimes > C: mandatory update > > Could you add this to the agenda please? > > Ulrich > > [1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26> >
1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never happened. Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again? 2. Progress report of EAPI 3 implementation 3. Preservation of file modification times - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus among PM developers on how to best approach this - If accepted vote on how to implement it * Possible approaches: http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26 4. Open discussion Regards, Petteri

Attachments

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