On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:15:58 -0400 Richard Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > You've missed the point. The point is, the EAPI process can't avoid > > the "huge wait before we can use it" for certain types of change > > that would be extremely useful. GLEP 55 fixes this limitation, and > > it's the *only* thing that fixes this limitation. > > > > Except that if we had just implemented one of other proposals a year > ago we probably would be done waiting now, while refusal to accept > anything other than EAPI-in-filename might have you waiting for this > ten years from now.
Had we gone with any of the other proposals a year ago, we'd be waiting a year every time a new change came along. > Sure, you might disagree with this, but that doesn't change the fact > that we are at an impasse and I see no sign of this changing anytime > soon - the last council clearly wasn't a big fan of GLEP 55 as it > stands, and the current council seems to be going in the same > direction. I guess you can always wait for the next council election > and see what 2010 brings. However, I hope you're not going to do > that to "speed things up!" If the Council were not a fan of GLEP 55, they would have voted against it. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
