On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:15:45 +0200
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:27:22 +0200
> > Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote:
> >> Many of them applies as well to the alternative proposal, I wonder
> >> how you could say we, council, had to vote the other proposal given
> >> such (and other) issues were open.
> > 
> > No they don't.
> 
> False.

Which of the issues I listed needs to be addressed for the scm proposal?

> > Does this mean you don't have answers then?
> 
>  From start I asked for help and from start I said that my proposal
> is anything but complete. I have no delusion to have all the answers
> at hand anytime.

Ok, here's the best help I can give you: Your proposal can't work. You
can't get correct ordering reusing existing components. You can't get
sane behaviour using your template scheme without making it aware of
scm revisions. You can't make it scm revision aware without a hell
of a lot of work. And if you do want to make it scm revision aware, you
need changes to the version scheme anyway.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh