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
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
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
History suggests that if it goes up for debate again, no decision
will ever be reached.
If we simply have to decide between alternatives scm and live,
then I don't see what should be so complicated about reaching a
decision.
GLEP 54 doesn't really
Joe Peterson wrote:
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.
Since we are stuck with the string once it is
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
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
