On Saturday 03 March 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > I'd like it spelt out please.
stop playing games > So why not start by imposing deadlines upon more important projects > like Portage USE deps, a Portage GLEP 42 implementation, a Portage GLEP > 23 implementation, a stable Portage API, tree-wide GPG signing and > things that users really care about? Is PMS really more important than > any of these? i'd rate all of these as less important than an EAPI=0 spec except for the GPG signing ... robbat i believe is looking into that > > the portage people have things marked for EAPI=1 which are sitting > > indefinitely (some features which for sure i want to use myself), but > > we cant really tag EAPI=0 final until we have a spec now can we ? > > Sure you can. It's easy to say "ebuilds that need to rely upon features > x, y and z must use EAPI=1, and for everything else continue as has > been done in the past until someone says otherwise". perhaps that would work short term, but the council shouldnt generally be focusing on the short term reviewing deadlines doesnt mean it's due tomorrow, it means we have a good way of guaging overall progress and to make sure things are getting done -mike
pgpbgnLlPgWPN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
