On Sun, 17 May 2009 13:24:27 -0600 Joe Peterson <lava...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Thomas Anderson wrote: > > - Vote on GLEP 54 > > This vote was called for by dertobi123. The vote was on > > whether to approve GLEP 54 conditional on whether GLEP 55 is > > passed. The reason for this is that GLEP 54 is unimplementable > > without the problems mentioned in GLEP 55 being solved. > > I have not seen much discussion lately regarding the choice of the > string, "scm" in this GLEP. I asked the author today on IRC, and he > said he doesn't have a particularly strong reason for "scm" beyond > historical reasons.
About a million years ago, we were going to move all the SCM packages into their own category (but it never happened, because port001's script didn't work). There was a huge bikeshed debate about whether to use vcs, rcs, scm or something else. In the interests of getting anything decided, Seemant made an executive decision and picked 'scm'. History suggests that if it goes up for debate again, no decision will ever be reached. Thus, the only sensible thing to do is to let the old decision stand. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
