On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:42:39PM +0100, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:10:38 +0100 > Marien Zwart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The > > idea was to not get any messy portage quirks documented as required > > standard behaviour, the risk here is that we'll now get paludis quirks > > documented as required standard behaviour. > > Well, that'll come out in review later, I would expect. I'll be > surprised if the EAPI=0 spec Ciaran et. al. are working on just gets > rubber-stamped without anyone looking! This thread shows there are a > number of people who know what they're talking about and will review it > heavily when it is published as a draft, and the council are unlikely > to approve something that doesn't have broad support.
I'd like to add some emphasis on "when it is published as a draft". What makes me uncomfortable is that the intention seems to be to release that draft simultaneously with the Paludis 1.0_pre mentioned earlier, which is rather a lot later than I'd like to see it. > With respect to having a small relatively closed group for initial > drafting - it's a sensible way to do things in the early stages (it's > not the only sensible way of course). In the early stages: agreed. I just hope it will not be developed up to "release candidate" status with little external (from non-Paludis devs) input. > If anyone doesn't like it, > there's nothing stopping them from drafting their own in a different > way. Indeed, having two strong drafts would be good, for finding > idiosyncrasies from different perspectives. If I considered myself qualified and had a lot of spare time I would have started doing that by now :) > I have to say, the few queries I've seen from Ciaran have been exactly > what I would (happily) expect. Yes, the *few* queries I've seen were ok. Perhaps there is simply much less there yet than I think there is. -- Marien.
pgpq4paBtpv9u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
