| 1 |
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:08:32 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > * Don't commit the EAPI 3 / 4 changes until the Council are done |
| 4 |
> > changing things, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> From the summary of the December Council meeting [1]: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> | EAPI-3 status |
| 9 |
> | ============= |
| 10 |
> | [...] |
| 11 |
> | Because prefix support will be EAPI-3 (see below), the EAPI items |
| 12 |
> | referenced here will be referred to as EAPI-4 in the future. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Official Council decision, therefore nothing to discuss. (And no, we |
| 15 |
> won't rename it back.) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sure. But we don't have a spec of what EAPI 3 is, so we can't do |
| 18 |
anything with it. We also don't know when we'll have a spec of what |
| 19 |
EAPI 3 is, so there's no point in tinkering with PMS until we do. We've |
| 20 |
tried to avoid having huge chunks of "todo" on the main branch since we |
| 21 |
started viewing PMS as being more or less correct, and adding them back |
| 22 |
in again is a huge step backwards. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
We did all the original EAPI 3 work on a branch and didn't merge it |
| 25 |
until it was done for a very good reason. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> > We also don't have approved summaries of any of the meetings where |
| 28 |
> > these things happened. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> And what is [1] then? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Something that wasn't there when I sent the original email, as you |
| 33 |
know very well. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives