Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:49:38 +0100
> Christian Faulhammer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > as the council did not show any interest in further additions to
> > EAPI 3 on their mailing list  and most PMS, council, Prefix and
> > PM members will be happy to push out an decideable EAPI 3 draft
> > fast, I want to tie the features:
> > * mtime preservation, bug 264130
> > * Prefix offset support, bug 296716
> > No matter how nice other features would be, we should regard EAPI
> > 3 similar to EAPI 1 which was a quick thing to get some small
> > features done. Any objections?
> Unfortunately, Zac is doing otherwise, and experience shows that what
> Zac does ends up being the final decision. You'll need to either
> convince him to revert the other things he's put in EAPI 3 (which I
> think is just unpack changes, so far), or get the Council to make him
> do so, or persuade the Council to change their minds on what's in 3.
No council decision, no xz support, no need for moaning. Apart from
Zac other people have commit access to the Portage repository. The
alternative is to get the council moving and vote at least on that as
it is really useful. ulm, mail vote?
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode