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 1Lrezb-00008R-PP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:07:32 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5E8EE0740; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:07:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8812EE0740 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:07:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E2B6426D for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:07:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.987 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.987 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.612, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oZiLKLfP1yxU for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:07:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F3164F33 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1LrezL-0003p0-FL for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:07:15 +0000 Received: from ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.99.190]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:07:15 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:07:15 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for April Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:07:05 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20090408070021.95C1D65069@smtp.gentoo.org> <1239208319.6160.8.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de> 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=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 1f61b246-2d2e-4598-b0d2-a38c3791f840 X-Archives-Hash: 76e88e5c3fbf7c59b06f932c2b65e1c3 Tobias Scherbaum posted 1239208319.6160.8.camel@homer.ob.libexec.de, excerpted below, on Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:31:59 +0200: > I'd like to vote on whether to approve GLEP 54. AFAIK after reading council logs, there were three things holding up GLEP= =20 54 as of the last meeting: 1) It seems easiest to implement if 55 (or alternative) is implemented in= =20 parallel. Thus, for practical reasons, resolution on 54 is to some=20 degree tied to 55. Going ahead with 54 on its own is possible, but=20 knowing where 55 is headed will make it easier. 2) Comparative performance tests/benchmarks. There was a bit of delay=20 getting test code into portage, but it's there now. Hopefully those=20 assigned to do the tests have done so and can report their results. 3) Most agree now that GLEP 54 on its own is only a first step and=20 doesn't do a whole lot on its own. Whether it's worth the trouble just=20 for itself is debatable. There was some council discussion asking that=20 the comparison be expanded to include at least some idea of what the next= =20 steps should be and where it's all headed, with a bit of comparison on=20 how the various proposed implementations would get there. IOW, several=20 folks on the council wanted at least some idea of the big picture, where=20 it's all headed, before they felt comfortable voting on GLEP 54. Issue #2 (performance questions) has had progress and hopefully has a=20 report waiting for this council meeting. Issue #1 (GLEP 55 tie-in) may=20 well resolve itself over time as they seem to have been treated in=20 parallel to a large degree. I'm not sure of the status on Issue #3 (big- picture map-out). Hopefully there has been some progress there as well. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman