Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From:	Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>
To:	gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject:	Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five)
Date:	Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:10:14
Message-Id:	`20051213205700.GK8629@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu`
In Reply to:	Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five) by Ciaran McCreesh

1	Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue Dec 13 2005, 02:43:42PM CST]
2	> I object. You're changing the GLEP process, and the way that that's
3	> done is through another GLEP. Otherwise we'll end up with people
4	> writing GLEPs following GLEP 1, and not realising that GLEP 1 is no
5	> longer how things work.
6	>
7	> Doing things properly wouldn't be difficult here. GLEP 43 took less
8	> than half an hour. It's worth doing it for the sake of not confusing
9	> future GLEP authors.
10
11	Okay, I'll acquiesce to the call for a GLEP. It seems a tad
12	extravagant, since I'll be the one approving it, but I can agree that
13	having the change documented would be useful.
14
15	-g2boojum-
16	--
17	Grant Goodyear
18	Gentoo Developer
19	g2boojum@g.o
20	http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
21	GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76