| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Thomas Anderson wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Attached is the preliminary meeting agenda. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Agenda is fine with me. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Define EAPI development/deployment cycles |
| 9 |
> ----------------------------------------- |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Last meeting several members expressed support for Ciaran McCreesh's |
| 12 |
> suggestions[1]. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I think we should try the outlined procedure for the next EAPI, with |
| 15 |
one exception: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
| [...] give them all an arbitrary codename that in no way describes |
| 18 |
| the feature |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
To keep it simple we should choose names that roughly describe what |
| 21 |
the features are about. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
| (so that certain people can't vote and discuss things based upon |
| 24 |
| what they think the feature is without bothering to find out if it's |
| 25 |
| anything to do with what they assume). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Of course that's not desirable. But can you give a concrete example |
| 28 |
where such a thing happened? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Ulrich |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> [1]: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d3a4758c455fded00608e891f525d3cc.xml |
Archives