On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:01:15 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <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. The alternative proposal is deliberately simple enough
> to avoid those issues, whilst leaving the possibility of a larger
> solution that does have scm revision awareness open for the future.

Just curious, were you happy with the previous GLEP54 draft or were
there still issues that had to be addressed?  As far as I'm concerned
it's fine.  (though I would change the suffix to -live, just because i
hate the term "SCM" :P)


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662