| 1 |
On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Why is PMS considered so important that it might have a deadline |
| 3 |
> imposed upon it by the Council? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
why is an EAPI spec considered important ? it should be plainly obvious why |
| 6 |
something like an EAPI standard matters so much to Gentoo |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> As far as I'm aware, nothing like this has been done before. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
so ? letting projects slide in the past is no justification to let projects |
| 11 |
in the future slide |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Now, if there's a good reason for the Council imposing a deadline, |
| 14 |
> there's a pretty decent chance that said deadline will be met. If the |
| 15 |
> Council can justify why it needs PMS done in a hurry, PMS can end up |
| 16 |
> being ready within a very short timeframe. If the Council can't justify |
| 17 |
> the deadline, it will end up being done within a not so short |
| 18 |
> timeframe, since all the PMS authors are working upon several things |
| 19 |
> and won't make PMS top priority without good reason. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
the portage people have things marked for EAPI=1 which are sitting |
| 22 |
indefinitely (some features which for sure i want to use myself), but we cant |
| 23 |
really tag EAPI=0 final until we have a spec now can we ? |
| 24 |
-mike |
Archives