On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:15:45 +0200 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:27:22 +0200 > > Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Many of them applies as well to the alternative proposal, I wonder > >> how you could say we, council, had to vote the other proposal given > >> such (and other) issues were open. > > > > No they don't. > > False.
Which of the issues I listed needs to be addressed for the scm proposal? > > Does this mean you don't have answers then? > > From start I asked for help and from start I said that my proposal > is anything but complete. I have no delusion to have all the answers > at hand anytime. Ok, here's the best help I can give you: Your proposal can't work. You can't get correct ordering reusing existing components. You can't get sane behaviour using your template scheme without making it aware of scm revisions. You can't make it scm revision aware without a hell of a lot of work. And if you do want to make it scm revision aware, you need changes to the version scheme anyway. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
