Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

["Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1324 bytes --]

Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>> 3. Preservation of file modification times
>>    - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
>>    - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
>>      among PM developers on how to best approach this
> 
> Actually, my request was more explicit:
> 
> If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it
> should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]:
> 
>   A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved
>   B: optional update of "old" mtimes
>   C: mandatory update
> 
> Could you add this to the agenda please?
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> [1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26>
> 

1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never happened.
   Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again?

2. Progress report of EAPI 3 implementation

3. Preservation of file modification times
   - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
   - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
     among PM developers on how to best approach this
   - If accepted vote on how to implement it
     * Possible approaches: http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26

4. Open discussion

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]