| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Andreas K. Huettel |
| 2 |
<dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> To be honest, I find the idea a bit silly to now strip out the instructions. |
| 4 |
> After all, from the text it should be clear what is requirement and what is |
| 5 |
> additional information. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Sure, and we can discuss which approach we want to take tomorrow. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
To be clear, my intent wasn't to disparage what was written so much as |
| 10 |
to suggest that we need a bit more before we ask all devs to comply. |
| 11 |
I don't disapprove of anything in the original GLEP - I just don't |
| 12 |
want to see it enforced until we're done with the implementation |
| 13 |
details. Again, we can potentially use the accepted vs final status |
| 14 |
as described in GLEP 1 to communicate this. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Rich |
Archives