| 1 |
On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:24:27 -0600 |
| 2 |
Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Thomas Anderson wrote: |
| 4 |
> > - Vote on GLEP 54 |
| 5 |
> > This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on |
| 6 |
> > whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is |
| 7 |
> > passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable |
| 8 |
> > without the problems mentioned in GLEP 55 being solved. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I have not seen much discussion lately regarding the choice of the |
| 11 |
> string, "scm" in this GLEP. I asked the author today on IRC, and he |
| 12 |
> said he doesn't have a particularly strong reason for "scm" beyond |
| 13 |
> historical reasons. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
About a million years ago, we were going to move all the SCM packages |
| 16 |
into their own category (but it never happened, because port001's |
| 17 |
script didn't work). There was a huge bikeshed debate about whether to |
| 18 |
use vcs, rcs, scm or something else. In the interests of getting |
| 19 |
anything decided, Seemant made an executive decision and picked 'scm'. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
History suggests that if it goes up for debate again, no decision will |
| 22 |
ever be reached. Thus, the only sensible thing to do is to let the old |
| 23 |
decision stand. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives