| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:15:45 +0200 |
| 2 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:27:22 +0200 |
| 5 |
> > Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Many of them applies as well to the alternative proposal, I wonder |
| 7 |
> >> how you could say we, council, had to vote the other proposal given |
| 8 |
> >> such (and other) issues were open. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > No they don't. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> False. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Which of the issues I listed needs to be addressed for the scm proposal? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > Does this mean you don't have answers then? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> From start I asked for help and from start I said that my proposal |
| 19 |
> is anything but complete. I have no delusion to have all the answers |
| 20 |
> at hand anytime. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ok, here's the best help I can give you: Your proposal can't work. You |
| 23 |
can't get correct ordering reusing existing components. You can't get |
| 24 |
sane behaviour using your template scheme without making it aware of |
| 25 |
scm revisions. You can't make it scm revision aware without a hell |
| 26 |
of a lot of work. And if you do want to make it scm revision aware, you |
| 27 |
need changes to the version scheme anyway. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives