| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:45:05 +0200
|
| 5 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:
|
| 6 |
> On 06/15/2013 06:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200 hasufell <hasufell@g.o> |
| 8 |
> > wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 10 |
> >>> Why not fix the specs? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> >> from council log |
| 13 |
> >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120911.txt |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> >> <Chainsaw> Okay for EAPI 5. *Nothing* gets applied |
| 16 |
> >> retroactively. *EVER* |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> >> So that means some people think it doesn't even matter what the |
| 19 |
> >> issue is. We never fix the spec, we just enhance it. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> >> Oh, you asked for reasoning... |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > If you want the reasoning for that decision, you should look at |
| 24 |
> > the entire log, and not just one line of it. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I was not talking about that decision. Stop derailing threads on -dev. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Then I appear to have misunderstood what you wanted reasoning for.
|
| 31 |
Please explain further. Chances are I can give you an answer, since
|
| 32 |
I've been involved in most of the policy-related discussions for EAPIs
|
| 33 |
and PMS.
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
- --
|
| 36 |
Ciaran McCreesh
|
| 37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| 38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlG8m0IACgkQ96zL6DUtXhETyACg0WVMQ4QslQezKtzOCpo+gGys
|
| 41 |
tNsAoLq4a15J0hhNG657HvLckBXw++f3
|
| 42 |
=+LFr
|
| 43 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives