| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:35:44 +0100 Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it |
| 4 |
| would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates in current GLEPs, |
| 5 |
| and he's ok with, though he wanted to have input from -dev first, so: |
| 6 |
| |
| 7 |
| Anyone objecting to change those dates from "dd-mon-yyyy" format to |
| 8 |
| "yyyy-mm-dd"? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I object. You're changing the GLEP process, and the way that that's |
| 11 |
done is through another GLEP. Otherwise we'll end up with people |
| 12 |
writing GLEPs following GLEP 1, and not realising that GLEP 1 is no |
| 13 |
longer how things work. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Doing things properly wouldn't be difficult here. GLEP 43 took less |
| 16 |
than half an hour. It's worth doing it for the sake of not confusing |
| 17 |
future GLEP authors. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) |
| 21 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 22 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives