| 1 |
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:37:28 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> posted |
| 5 |
> 20070405092817.79df34d3@snowflake, excerpted below, on Thu, 05 Apr |
| 6 |
> 2007 09:28:17 +0100: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400 |
| 9 |
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> >> - PMS: |
| 11 |
> >> - status update from spb |
| 12 |
> >> - moving it to Gentoo svn |
| 13 |
> >> - schedule for getting remaining issues settled |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Same question as last time this came up: |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Can you name any other projects where the Council has become |
| 18 |
> > involved in scheduling issues? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If I may... take this as at least certain members of the council |
| 21 |
> agreeing with you that certain package management issues are holding |
| 22 |
> up Gentoo (note, I did NOT say portage, per se, but package |
| 23 |
> management issues in general, I'm deliberately leaving it at that |
| 24 |
> general level). |
| 25 |
<snip> |
| 26 |
> Or are you now arguing that movement on package management is /not/ |
| 27 |
> holding back Gentoo, now? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I want a consistent answer, and to know why the Council considers PMS |
| 30 |
to be more important time-wise than, as far as I can see, any other |
| 31 |
project ever. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives