| 1 |
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> 2. To avoid such long delays as we have seen with EAPI 4, I would |
| 4 |
>> also like to suggest the following: New EAPI dependent features |
| 5 |
>> shall only be accepted if a preliminary patch for portage exists. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> You mean, "code it without doing any design"? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
No, that is not at all my intent. That there should be a design goes |
| 10 |
without saying. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I'll note that the original EAPI 4 list included *only* those |
| 13 |
> features that Zac said would be easy to implement, and a long list |
| 14 |
> of things developers wanted was left out because of that... The |
| 15 |
> problem here's not on the EAPI or PMS side. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Right, and that's why I hadn't mentioned PMS. But in order to avoid |
| 18 |
any misunderstandings, change the above to: "... shall only be |
| 19 |
accepted if both a specification (e.g., PMS patch or GLEP) and a |
| 20 |
preliminary patch for portage exist." |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ulrich |
Archives