| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> You've missed the point. The point is, the EAPI process can't avoid the |
| 3 |
> "huge wait before we can use it" for certain types of change that |
| 4 |
> would be extremely useful. GLEP 55 fixes this limitation, and it's the |
| 5 |
> *only* thing that fixes this limitation. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Except that if we had just implemented one of other proposals a year ago |
| 9 |
we probably would be done waiting now, while refusal to accept anything |
| 10 |
other than EAPI-in-filename might have you waiting for this ten years |
| 11 |
from now. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Sure, you might disagree with this, but that doesn't change the fact |
| 14 |
that we are at an impasse and I see no sign of this changing anytime |
| 15 |
soon - the last council clearly wasn't a big fan of GLEP 55 as it |
| 16 |
stands, and the current council seems to be going in the same direction. |
| 17 |
I guess you can always wait for the next council election and see |
| 18 |
what 2010 brings. However, I hope you're not going to do that to "speed |
| 19 |
things up!" |
Archives