On Sat, 16 May 2009 11:15:58 -0400
Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > You've missed the point. The point is, the EAPI process can't avoid
> > the "huge wait before we can use it" for certain types of change
> > that would be extremely useful. GLEP 55 fixes this limitation, and
> > it's the *only* thing that fixes this limitation.
> > 
> 
> Except that if we had just implemented one of other proposals a year
> ago we probably would be done waiting now, while refusal to accept
> anything other than EAPI-in-filename might have you waiting for this
> ten years from now.

Had we gone with any of the other proposals a year ago, we'd be waiting
a year every time a new change came along.

> Sure, you might disagree with this, but that doesn't change the fact 
> that we are at an impasse and I see no sign of this changing anytime 
> soon - the last council clearly wasn't a big fan of GLEP 55 as it 
> stands, and the current council seems to be going in the same
> direction. I guess you can always wait for the next council election
> and see what 2010 brings.  However, I hope you're not going to do
> that to "speed things up!"

If the Council were not a fan of GLEP 55, they would have voted against
it.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh