| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:49:38 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> No matter how nice other features would be, we should regard EAPI |
| 5 |
>> 3 similar to EAPI 1 which was a quick thing to get some small |
| 6 |
>> features done. Any objections? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Unfortunately, Zac is doing otherwise, and experience shows that what |
| 9 |
> Zac does ends up being the final decision. You'll need to either |
| 10 |
> convince him to revert the other things he's put in EAPI 3 (which I |
| 11 |
> think is just unpack changes, so far), or get the Council to make him |
| 12 |
> do so, or persuade the Council to change their minds on what's in 3. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The council doesn't have to "make" me do anything. The final EAPI 3 |
| 15 |
will have exactly what the council wants and nothing more. I added |
| 16 |
xz unpack in EAPI 3_pre2 because I just assumed that everyone would |
| 17 |
agree on it. If the council wants to exclude xz unpack in the final |
| 18 |
EAPI 3, that's okay and I'll do as the council wishes. |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Thanks, |
| 21 |
Zac |
Archives