| 1 |
On Monday 12 September 2005 10:13 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:03:31 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 3 |
> | > Could we get GLEP 31 (Character Sets for Portage Tree Items) added? |
| 4 |
> | > The only issue holding it back is that a few developers have stated |
| 5 |
> | > outright that they refuse to comply with it, and I don't see it as |
| 6 |
> | > fair to make other developers suffer nasty repoman errors because |
| 7 |
> | > of things a select few will end up breaking... |
| 8 |
> | |
| 9 |
> | it was approved once already, just retracted after that fact pending |
| 10 |
> | further developments in terms of application/developer support |
| 11 |
> | (editors not sucking so much for example) ... so does it really need |
| 12 |
> | to be approved again ? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What I mean is... Is the council prepared to commit itself to helping |
| 15 |
> with enforcement of the GLEP? Adding repoman enforcement would be |
| 16 |
> trivial, but repoman is circumventable -- the GLEP is withdrawn because |
| 17 |
> several developers have said that they'll do just that anyway. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
personally i think this is qa / devrel's area of enforcement ... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
once something has been approved by the managers/council, then it's pretty |
| 22 |
much policy in my mind ... it just needs to trickle down into the |
| 23 |
documentation and tools |
| 24 |
-mike |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives