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 1M5LcH-0002XK-TB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 15:16:02 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 25D58E02A0; Sat, 16 May 2009 15:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vms173017pub.verizon.net (vms173017pub.verizon.net [206.46.173.17]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0FFE02A0 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 15:16:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gw.thefreemanclan.net ([68.162.77.227]) by vms173017.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KJQ001BLT2NDNIX@vms173017.mailsrvcs.net> for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 May 2009 10:15:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.thefreemanclan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11881759C56 for ; Sat, 16 May 2009 11:15:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-id: <4A0ED8AE.205@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 11:15:58 -0400 From: Richard Freeman User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090321) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The fallacies of GLEP55 References: <200905142006.51998.patrick@gentoo.org> <4A0C790A.1050209@gentoo.org> <20090514231623.409c8eb7@gentoo.org> <20090514214909.GA23080@linux1> <20090514225337.34df7dac@snowcone> <20090515194329.GA16382@linux1> <20090515204905.54aa6a5c@snowmobile> <20090516092710.GA3221@eric.schwarzvogel.de> <20090516151216.15efc792@snowmobile> <5981172.Hf5BpBib5L@news.friendly-coders.info> <20090516155709.4847f2aa@snowmobile> In-reply-to: <20090516155709.4847f2aa@snowmobile> Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4eaa10d6-b5d1-4170-a737-97acb668d5fa X-Archives-Hash: 7a7dff2e7563f6cb26d376d62b04bbf7 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. 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!"