1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:05:46 +0100 |
4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> See above, even if we should ever move away from bash, GLEP 55 is |
6 |
>> still not needed. |
7 |
|
8 |
> ...but we might as well go with GLEP 55 anyway, since GLEP 55 |
9 |
> definitely works, whereas other solutions might work so long as we |
10 |
> don't do something unexpected. |
11 |
|
12 |
> This whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find excuses not |
13 |
> to use GLEP 55. |
14 |
|
15 |
There are very good reasons not to embed this information in the |
16 |
filename. That it makes the filename harder to parse for the human eye |
17 |
and more difficult to type is one of them. |
18 |
|
19 |
Besides, we already have a council decision about that GLEP. |
20 |
|
21 |
Ulrich |