1 |
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:49:38 +0100 |
2 |
Christian Faulhammer <fauli@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> as the council did not show any interest in further additions to EAPI |
4 |
> 3 on their mailing list [1] and most PMS, council, Prefix and PM |
5 |
> members will be happy to push out an decideable EAPI 3 draft fast, I |
6 |
> want to tie the features: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> * mtime preservation, bug 264130 |
9 |
> * Prefix offset support, bug 296716 |
10 |
> |
11 |
> No matter how nice other features would be, we should regard EAPI |
12 |
> 3 similar to EAPI 1 which was a quick thing to get some small |
13 |
> features done. Any objections? |
14 |
|
15 |
Unfortunately, Zac is doing otherwise, and experience shows that what |
16 |
Zac does ends up being the final decision. You'll need to either |
17 |
convince him to revert the other things he's put in EAPI 3 (which I |
18 |
think is just unpack changes, so far), or get the Council to make him |
19 |
do so, or persuade the Council to change their minds on what's in 3. |
20 |
|
21 |
-- |
22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |