| 1 |
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'd like it spelt out please. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
stop playing games |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects |
| 7 |
> like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP |
| 8 |
> 23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing and |
| 9 |
> things that users really care about? Is PMS really more important than |
| 10 |
> any of these? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
i'd rate all of these as less important than an EAPI=0 spec except for the GPG |
| 13 |
signing ... robbat i believe is looking into that |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > the portage people have things marked for EAPI=1 which are sitting |
| 16 |
> > indefinitely (some features which for sure i want to use myself), but |
| 17 |
> > we cant really tag EAPI=0 final until we have a spec now can we ? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Sure you can. It's easy to say "ebuilds that need to rely upon features |
| 20 |
> x, y and z must use EAPI=1, and for everything else continue as has |
| 21 |
> been done in the past until someone says otherwise". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
perhaps that would work short term, but the council shouldnt generally be |
| 24 |
focusing on the short term |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
reviewing deadlines doesnt mean it's due tomorrow, it means we have a good way |
| 27 |
of guaging overall progress and to make sure things are getting done |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives