Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:14:03PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100 or thereabouts, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > Isn't this an issue that also exists for the Gentoo developers in general?
> 
> Not as much since we can track things like last cvs commit, last login to
> toucan, etc.  But it does exist to some extent.
> 
> That does not, however, make it acceptable to further exacerbate the
> problem.  We're working towards improving the procedures and controls we
> have in place today.  We're not going to implement something that will move
> us backwards.

I'll again point out that the glep doesn't actually mandate it, states 
it's the lowest common denominator that's acceptable.

Stop pointing at one interpretation of it that sucks, when the glep 
_does_ leave it open to you how to implement it.  It's a waste of 
people's time and bandwidth, and is a bit disenguous.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]