| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 15:02 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:39:51 -0600 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Thoughts / comments? I promise not to bite anyone's head off this |
| 5 |
> | time! |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I don't think there's anything wrong with the system, except that |
| 8 |
> certain managers can in effect put a GLEP on hold indefinitely because |
| 9 |
> their favourite editor sucks. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'd rather have GLEPs than half-baked kook schemes. We've all seen how |
| 12 |
> long they take to un-screw-up... Well, actually, we haven't, since |
| 13 |
> they're still not un-screwed, but we've at least seen how much mess they |
| 14 |
> make. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Agreed, the GLEP system is good as it stands. If you look at the recent |
| 18 |
GLEPs that came through like the GLEPs 30 & 31 which went by (with one |
| 19 |
minor exception *cough* nano *cough*) very quickly due to developer |
| 20 |
interest. And others, like GLEP 19 for example, are under active |
| 21 |
development. The problem is not with the GLEP system it's with the |
| 22 |
developers who are either too lazy/busy to write up a proper GLEP for |
| 23 |
things that need it, and thus don't want whatever it is to be |
| 24 |
implemented too badly, or loose interest in one way or another in one |
| 25 |
they have already written and neither of these can be fixed by changing |
| 26 |
policy. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
--Dan |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives