From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M9lUs-0008Ip-3a for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:42:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 191ECE050C; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.3.140]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC16DE050C for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:42:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.141] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost01.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1M9lUq-0007O3-AQ for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 28 May 2009 19:42:36 +0000 Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:42:30 +0100 From: Roy Bamford Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo Council Reminder for May 28 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1243489596.10450.24.camel@localhost> <200905282030.44496.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090528194845.30a7c9ad@snowcone> <200905282119.35666.patrick@gentoo.org> <20090528202643.0d763768@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090528202643.0d763768@snowcone> (from ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com on Thu May 28 20:26:43 2009) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.3.28 Message-Id: <1243539755.3439.2@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost01-IP: [62.3.120.141] X-Archives-Salt: 8e2ef331-8725-4a3a-be36-d1408faddb14 X-Archives-Hash: 3d428e6adbef2d2f4b32911cb074eba2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2009.05.28 20:26, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [snip] > > I think I have pointed you a few times at objective statements > > disagreeing with your subjective opinion. I hate repeating myself. >=20 > And yet you keep ignoring the part where GLEP 55 demonstrates > objectively that the extension solution is better than the > alternatives. >=20 > --=20 > Ciaran McCreesh >=20 Ciaran,=20 I don't see any objective measurements of performace in GLEP 55 either. perhaps you could point me to a version and pargraph in GLEP that=20 details these benchmarks ? Its possible I'm looking at an old version.=20 - --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoe6SsACgkQTE4/y7nJvastiACdGB9T5AxloneQVrcY34liSvIf 5BkAoLQwpuLOw+ueGMrmecYAoPk8AsYn =3DgF09 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----