On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:45:08 -0600 Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just curious, were you happy with the previous GLEP54 draft or were > there still issues that had to be addressed? As far as I'm concerned > it's fine. (though I would change the suffix to -live, just because i > hate the term "SCM" :P)
I'm happy with GLEP 54 as being the first, easy half of getting proper scm support. It correctly solves the ordering and identification issues. The second, really difficult part is making the package manager aware of upstream scm revisions. That can be done later by building upon GLEP 54. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
