| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> [...] IUSE_RUNTIME [...] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Another thing is implementing it. But if it's deferred right now, |
| 6 |
> I doubt it's going to move on until the last vote. Zac used to be |
| 7 |
> pretty positive about it but nobody started trying to implement it. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I'd rather avoid adding a feature to EAPI 6 where we don't have a |
| 10 |
proof of concept at least. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
We made this mistake in EAPI 3 and it was endlessly delayed. (What was |
| 13 |
originally intended to be EAPI 3 is now called EAPI 4, and at least |
| 14 |
one of its features was further delayed until EAPI 5.) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I'd say the initial vote may happen on the idea now, and if |
| 17 |
> necessary, the implementation may be postponed into next EAPI later. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
We can vote and give the go-ahead for it, and if IUSE_RUNTIME is |
| 20 |
ready in time, then it can be part of EAPI 6. But please, let's keep |
| 21 |
it separate from the EAPI, for the time being. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ulrich |
Archives