| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Which of the issues I listed needs to be addressed for the scm proposal? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
At least the upstream server load. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Ok, here's the best help I can give you: Your proposal can't work. You |
| 7 |
> can't get correct ordering reusing existing components. You can't get |
| 8 |
> sane behaviour using your template scheme without making it aware of |
| 9 |
> scm revisions. You can't make it scm revision aware without a hell |
| 10 |
> of a lot of work. And if you do want to make it scm revision aware, you |
| 11 |
> need changes to the version scheme anyway. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Other people seem to think it's feasible, I think my proposal nicer and |
| 14 |
giving some value for the effort of implementing it, -scm adds a some |
| 15 |
work to do with undefined features at best. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
lu |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Luca Barbato |
| 22 |
Gentoo Council Member |
| 23 |
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC |
| 24 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives