Mind you my opinion... On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:32:42PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:27:30 -0700 > Donnie Berkholz <[email protected]> wrote: > > EAPI 4: Inclusion of prefix-related variables
While I'm a fan of prefix, a stronger case for existing implementation (including more exposition of it) should be made for this rather then planning for discussion of it for eapi4. > > EAPI 4: Inclusion of "mtime preservation" This belongs in eapi3. Arguement that it should be shelved because "we don't want to slow down eapi3" ignores the simplicity of it, the gains/costs being nailed down for it, and the fact every manager has to do work for eapi3- this is quite simple, hiding behind "eapi3 is locked down" is just dodging the needed specification due to lacking strong technical arguements to kill it. ~harring
pgp5pW7cxZGGb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
