1 |
On 13 March 2012 11:02, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>> The previous council's decision does not prevent this same glep from |
3 |
>> going to the council again (decisions are not forever.) |
4 |
>> Some folks seem to think that taking glep55 back to the council is not |
5 |
>> allowed somehow (or is perhaps futile, but that is a different issue |
6 |
>> ;p) Having the full notes would be helpful in determining why it was |
7 |
>> turned down back then; I'm sure a copy of the notes exist. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ |
10 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100823.txt |
11 |
> |
12 |
|
13 |
Well that was insightful. As suspected,, there was a lot of people |
14 |
saying "Yeaahh, I don't like it", and concluding there were problems |
15 |
with it, but the actual technical issues still haven't been presented |
16 |
to us. |
17 |
|
18 |
While they're still batting for the alternative solutions, which there |
19 |
are known potential issues with. |
20 |
|
21 |
Or did I read it selectively? |
22 |
|
23 |
Can somebody present a real ( or even theoretical ) problem that could |
24 |
arise from having the EAPI in the filename that isn't some abstract |
25 |
hand-waving? |
26 |
|
27 |
Not trying to be a troll here, but really, I still haven't seen any. |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Kent |
32 |
|
33 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
34 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |