From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2BFnFba020228 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:49:15 GMT Received: from p66-135.acedsl.com ([66.114.66.135] helo=anyarch.net) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D9mO1-0001ae-W5 for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:49:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anyarch.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1BD156D14 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:49:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from anyarch.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.anyarch.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22097-06-3 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.11.6] (unknown [65.115.53.79]) by anyarch.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FC0156CFC for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:49:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP system worthwhile? From: Daniel Ostrow To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20050311150215.16418202@snowdrop> References: <20050311143951.GA27199@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <20050311150215.16418202@snowdrop> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: The Gentoo Foundation Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:47:11 -0500 Message-Id: <1110556031.8218.9.camel@Memoria.anyarch.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at anyarch.net X-Archives-Salt: e3e70535-f115-44fd-9f5e-0b0aa8fe5a90 X-Archives-Hash: b7d54b91c48a6aec141c4fda5b82d0db On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 15:02 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:39:51 -0600 Grant Goodyear > wrote: > | Thoughts / comments? I promise not to bite anyone's head off this > | time! > > I don't think there's anything wrong with the system, except that > certain managers can in effect put a GLEP on hold indefinitely because > their favourite editor sucks. > > I'd rather have GLEPs than half-baked kook schemes. We've all seen how > long they take to un-screw-up... Well, actually, we haven't, since > they're still not un-screwed, but we've at least seen how much mess they > make. > Agreed, the GLEP system is good as it stands. If you look at the recent GLEPs that came through like the GLEPs 30 & 31 which went by (with one minor exception *cough* nano *cough*) very quickly due to developer interest. And others, like GLEP 19 for example, are under active development. The problem is not with the GLEP system it's with the developers who are either too lazy/busy to write up a proper GLEP for things that need it, and thus don't want whatever it is to be implemented too badly, or loose interest in one way or another in one they have already written and neither of these can be fixed by changing policy. --Dan -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list