| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:01:15 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 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. The alternative proposal is deliberately simple enough |
| 11 |
> to avoid those issues, whilst leaving the possibility of a larger |
| 12 |
> solution that does have scm revision awareness open for the future. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Just curious, were you happy with the previous GLEP54 draft or were |
| 15 |
there still issues that had to be addressed? As far as I'm concerned |
| 16 |
it's fine. (though I would change the suffix to -live, just because i |
| 17 |
hate the term "SCM" :P) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 22 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 23 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives