-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:45:05 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 06/15/2013 06:43 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 18:41:18 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> On 06/15/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > >>> Why not fix the specs? > > > >> from council log > >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20120911.txt > > > >> <Chainsaw> Okay for EAPI 5. *Nothing* gets applied > >> retroactively. *EVER* > > > >> So that means some people think it doesn't even matter what the > >> issue is. We never fix the spec, we just enhance it. > > > >> Oh, you asked for reasoning... > > > > If you want the reasoning for that decision, you should look at > > the entire log, and not just one line of it. > > > > > > I was not talking about that decision. Stop derailing threads on -dev.
Then I appear to have misunderstood what you wanted reasoning for. Please explain further. Chances are I can give you an answer, since I've been involved in most of the policy-related discussions for EAPIs and PMS. - -- Ciaran McCreesh -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlG8m0IACgkQ96zL6DUtXhETyACg0WVMQ4QslQezKtzOCpo+gGys tNsAoLq4a15J0hhNG657HvLckBXw++f3 =+LFr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
