| 1 |
Mind you my opinion... |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:32:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:27:30 -0700 |
| 5 |
> Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > EAPI 4: Inclusion of prefix-related variables |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
While I'm a fan of prefix, a stronger case for existing |
| 9 |
implementation (including more exposition of it) should be made for |
| 10 |
this rather then planning for discussion of it for eapi4. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > EAPI 4: Inclusion of "mtime preservation" |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This belongs in eapi3. Arguement that it should be shelved because |
| 15 |
"we don't want to slow down eapi3" ignores the simplicity of it, the |
| 16 |
gains/costs being nailed down for it, and the fact every manager has |
| 17 |
to do work for eapi3- this is quite simple, hiding behind "eapi3 is |
| 18 |
locked down" is just dodging the needed specification due to lacking |
| 19 |
strong technical arguements to kill it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
~harring |
Archives