On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 09:15:21AM +1030, Antony Blakey wrote: > No. The primary reason is "why change - the current mechanism has worked for a > year". Damien (project lead) doesn't regard change as necessary, and a > significant change to support top-level reflexivity (which is your primary > thrust) doesn't have support from the other gatekeepers. There is some support > for name identity, although I suspect not enough to prompt a change.
I appreciate you're frustrated with the current situation Antony, but I think it's unfair for you to be claiming any kind of consensus without a vote. I would be interested in seeing a patch, explanation, and vote. I've already expressed my agreement with many of the points you've raised, and I'm not the only one. It's pretty pointless for us to keep sending emails over proposed changes to the code without actually seeing the changes. So, in the tradition of the Linux kernel, show the code and let's have a vote! -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
