Archives
Archives
| From: | Olivier Crete <tester@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five) | ||
| Date: | Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:09:36 | ||
| Message-Id: | 1134515103.26856.36.camel@cocagne.max-t.internal | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five) by Ciaran McCreesh |
||
| 1 | On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 21:09 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 | > On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete <tester@g.o> |
| 3 | > wrote: |
| 4 | > | Why not just modify GlEP 1 ? |
| 5 | > |
| 6 | > Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it |
| 7 | > *still* doesn't address the issue of documenting why the change was |
| 8 | > made. |
| 9 | |
| 10 | And why not just adding a changelog to the glep explaining the changes? |
| 11 | I really don't like to idea of having to read 8 gleps to find out how to |
| 12 | write a glep ... and calling it glep 1.a is a good idea.. or 1.1 |
| 13 | |
| 14 | -- |
| 15 | Olivier Crête |
| 16 | tester@g.o |
| 17 | Gentoo Developer |
| 18 | |
| 19 | |
| 20 | -- |
| 21 | gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five) | Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o> |
| [gentoo-dev] Re: Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five) | Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@×××××.com> |
| Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five) | Jakub Moc <jakub@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Changes to date format of current GLEPs (was: GLEP 42 (Critical News Reporting) round five) | Francesco Riosa <vivo@g.o> |