| 1 |
Hi Chris, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 10/25/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> Also, I'd like to know what you would propose we do if we were to follow |
| 5 |
> something like this. Would we post something like GLEP 39a, as an |
| 6 |
> amendment to GLEP 39, or would we have to rewrite the whole thing, with |
| 7 |
> just the one change, to supersede? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Perhaps we need an amendment to GLEP 1 to allow explictly-stated |
| 10 |
> amendments? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I think it'd be common sense to post -r1, -r2 etc, and extend the XML |
| 13 |
syntax so that we could easily indicate which sentences had been |
| 14 |
changed. I think it'll make things easier than a |
| 15 |
read-GLEP-39-now-read-GLEPs-39a-to-39z type of approach. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
We could also have a 'Revisions' section somewhere (if we don't have |
| 18 |
one already) in the GLEP listing the date, a link to the Council |
| 19 |
meeting logs approving the change, and a (very) brief summary of the |
| 20 |
change. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I'm sure there are other ways we could do this that would also be practical. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Best regards, |
| 25 |
Stu |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives