| 1 |
W dniu pią, 06.07.2018 o godzinie 08∶40 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> > > > > > On Fri, 06 Jul 2018, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Did you even read the text? It's 'at most 2 years'. If you renew it |
| 5 |
> > every year, you can achieve the desired effect while keeping far |
| 6 |
> > ahead of the required schedule. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So effectively we're down from 5 years to 1 year also for the main |
| 9 |
> key, as a mandatory requirement? That is not what I have perceived |
| 10 |
> as the consensus in the discussion so far. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No, effectively we have 2 years unless developers are picky, in which |
| 13 |
case it's their problem and not mine. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > I really see no point in added complexity just so that someone could |
| 16 |
> > bend the standard to the limits. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It isn't complicated in the current version of GLEP 63 ("5 years |
| 19 |
> maximum"). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
5 years is insane. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Simply keep that wording, or moderately shorten it, to |
| 24 |
> something like 3 years, or 2.25 years. (Or if you prefer round |
| 25 |
> numbers, 800 days, or 70000000 seconds.) :-) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If I do it 3 years, you're going to complain that now you have to update |
| 29 |
it every 2 years because it's not 3 years + 2 weeks... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives