Olivier Crete wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> | Why not just modify GlEP 1 ?
>>
>> Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it
>> *still* doesn't address the
14.12.2005, 0:05:03, Olivier Crete wrote:
> And why not just adding a changelog to the glep explaining the changes?
> I really don't like to idea of having to read 8 gleps to find out how to
> write a glep ... and calling it glep 1.a is a good idea.. or 1.1
+1
--
jakub
pgpLbeynqVjnu.pgp
Des
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 06:05:03PM -0500, Olivier Crete wrote:
> And why not just adding a changelog to the glep explaining the changes?
> I really don't like to idea of having to read 8 gleps to find out how to
> write a glep ... and calling it glep 1.a is a good idea.. or 1.1
GLEP 45, "GLEP date
On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 21:09 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | Why not just modify GlEP 1 ?
>
> Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it
> *still* doesn't address the issue of documenting why the
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:53:45 -0500 Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| Why not just modify GlEP 1 ?
Going back and retroactively modifying standards is icky, and it
*still* doesn't address the issue of documenting why the change was
made.
You know, a GLEP could have been written and posted
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Tue Dec 13 2005, 02:43:42PM CST]
> I object. You're changing the GLEP process, and the way that that's
> done is through another GLEP. Otherwise we'll end up with people
> writing GLEPs following GLEP 1, and not realising that GLEP 1 is no
> longer how things work.
>
> Doin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Ciaran,
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
| | Anyone objecting to change those dates from "dd-mon-" format to
| | "-mm-dd"?
|
| I object. You're changing the GLEP process, and the way that that's
| done is through another GLEP. Otherwise we'll end
On Tue, 2005-13-12 at 20:43 +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:35:44 +0100 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it
> | would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates in current GLEPs,
> | and he's ok wi
Danny van Dyk wrote: [Tue Dec 13 2005, 02:35:44PM CST]
> | I'll accept that change if you get Grant to accept a mini-GLEP
> | switching the GLEPs over to use that format too.
>
> I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it
> would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:35:44 +0100 Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| I don't think that we need a GLEP for it, no matter how 'mini' it
| would be.. Just asked Grant if I can convert dates in current GLEPs,
| and he's ok with, though he wanted to have input from -dev first, so:
|
| Anyone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
| | Proposed change:
| |
| | ``Posted:``
| | Date of posting, in ``-mm-dd`` format (e.g. 2001-08-14) for
| | compatibility with ISO-8601. UTC time in ``T19:53:46+``
| | format may also be included (`date --i
11 matches
Mail list logo
