| 1 |
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:49:38 +0100 |
| 2 |
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> as the council did not show any interest in further additions to EAPI |
| 4 |
> 3 on their mailing list [1] and most PMS, council, Prefix and PM |
| 5 |
> members will be happy to push out an decideable EAPI 3 draft fast, I |
| 6 |
> want to tie the features: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> * mtime preservation, bug 264130 |
| 9 |
> * Prefix offset support, bug 296716 |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> No matter how nice other features would be, we should regard EAPI |
| 12 |
> 3 similar to EAPI 1 which was a quick thing to get some small |
| 13 |
> features done. Any objections? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Unfortunately, Zac is doing otherwise, and experience shows that what |
| 16 |
Zac does ends up being the final decision. You'll need to either |
| 17 |
convince him to revert the other things he's put in EAPI 3 (which I |
| 18 |
think is just unpack changes, so far), or get the Council to make him |
| 19 |
do so, or persuade the Council to change their minds on what's in 3. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives