| 1 |
On Monday, 13. October 2008 19:42:21 Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Since EAPI=0 isn't actually approved yet, council wouldn't vote |
| 3 |
> either. As it's a draft standard, this would be resolved amongst |
| 4 |
> package-manager developers and PMS editors. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
So, EAPI-2 had to be approved before it could be used in the tree. EAPI-0 |
| 7 |
isn't "actually approved yet", though, so it must not be used in the tree, |
| 8 |
right? ;-) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
And since EAPI-1 builds upon EAPI-0, that's not acceptable in the tree |
| 11 |
either. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
(And, btw, the former council decided there wouldn't be any new EAPIs |
| 14 |
before EAPI-0 wasn't approved.) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
While I agree with your intention of letting people decide upon the stuff |
| 17 |
they have to work with mostly on their own and with each other, I think |
| 18 |
your argument, Donnie, is rather "interesting". :-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Best regards, Wulf |
Archives