From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80CA138334 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9F7AFE07F9; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34D9FE07F0 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65BAB335CA6; Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1541168416.899.14.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] fortran-2.eclass: support EAPI 7 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 15:20:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20181102012744.475046f4a4cf9aadf5f17c67@gentoo.org> References: <20181028013841.7bd52f2b363d0b11fbe97dd1@gentoo.org> <1540751368.7710.0.camel@gentoo.org> <20181029035705.59f926ed6e7e604baa84de0c@gentoo.org> <1540883938.1250.6.camel@gentoo.org> <20181102012744.475046f4a4cf9aadf5f17c67@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-UsmDA7drkqCS5NFLq7In" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.6 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 X-Archives-Salt: a7947120-e93e-4d86-b886-d816e40b29cd X-Archives-Hash: 2a01d102f2cfeb9378e7ba7d2d8ddc81 --=-UsmDA7drkqCS5NFLq7In Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 01:27 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Hi! >=20 > On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:18:58 +0100 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 03:57 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 19:29:28 +0100 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2018-10-28 at 01:38 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > > > Hi all! > > > > >=20 > > > > > The only blocker for EAPI 7 update is eutils inheritance, but it > > > > > seems to be not used within the current eclass code, probably a > > > > > remnant from older days. So it is removed. > > > > >=20 > > > > > Looks like no other EAPI 7 specific changes needed. > > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Please use -U99999 to include more context to the patches. > >=20 > > I'm going to include a few 'easy cleanup' comments since EAPI 7 > > is a good opportunity to improve the eclass. I'm going to skip horribl= y > > bad design decisions since I suppose nobody cares. >=20 > Should we really mix EAPI bump with full code review? Yes, for two reasons. Firstly, because an EAPI bump effectively requires reviewing all the eclass logic for constraints imposed by the new EAPI. While reviewing code, it is natural that people may notice other issues.=20 Ignoring them once noticed would be a waste of effort. Secondly, changes to frequently used eclass have a large overhead of metadata cache updates. Given most of the listed issues are rather trivial to fix, it would be wasteful to defer them for a second metadata cache update. > This eclass is small, so no harm here. But for larger eclasses > (hello java-*.eclass) this will hinder updates considerably. I > prefer to fix something rather than to fix nothing while > frustrating in attempt to fix everything at once. >=20 > Also this make git history review harder as fixes for independent > issues will be mixed together. Why would you mix them together? The whole point of using git (and not CVS) is that you can trivially make separate commits addressing different kinds of issues. It also makes it trivial to send them for review afterwards. > So I kindly ask you for future updates (from everyone, not just > me) focus on review of the proposed changes instead of reviewing > full code. Thank you for understanding. As explained above, the proposed change is meaningless without context (as it affects how everything else in eclass works). If we were to ignore context, we'd even ACK eclass changes that resulted in the eclass immediately dying due to programmer's mistake. Finally, I'd like to point out that peer review is one of foundations of open source. Sadly, Gentoo has failed to embrace this, and right now re= views of existing code are rather an exception than a rule. What makes it even worse is that some developers are actively hostile to the criticism of their code. It is as if Gentoo's bazaar was dominated by = makeshift cathedrals. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-UsmDA7drkqCS5NFLq7In Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAABCgB9FiEEXr8g+Zb7PCLMb8pAur8dX/jIEQoFAlvcXSBfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDVF QkYyMEY5OTZGQjNDMjJDQzZGQ0E0MEJBQkYxRDVGRjhDODExMEEACgkQur8dX/jI EQodvg/9HfMe7UPdUiR86wn6aLkvUziSH1t3qgvWbN8/mwzd7DBVi94pKr7Qz6ji hUSMGl8dSZxfBaryn+1+53e1TJjegobXjTsMeKCkCiyjpam+D5AfPW9F0bRWqkMN 8OTZJhMOupnoI8IybNmebw6JQ1SLuFTM6Z/PDHeoroWiibN/WgTzvaMaZ+fsz+tX KwiE3ZNPohZzNbD1MV18UM5Cwsh6ouGjcFrczvgVOZesre4zyPXr7qjlaVA3aHAU OKwblFDMl5I3rwaK270/x7h+qp9gD4eayAOXkZazeuasDfnRDbq7CBL2n2C/TNNM uuYd6PgWLKEbFLBPNHgDgYJaWNhR2iJ/3SFKYMBYBWM+pxaEPKO4eucKhmnC0II7 lpwJGqOt6y7t9ixPY3+h3mC1S4Ksd+edoPc1zkLhk5PwiLWc37/ZkfgFNUZSXz7o d2ZzsVpwgAzeGohd/TUxMkAwdZx08VdEtUEBDmhHjzuZoy4rc0ufR/sEzZ2kyRsw Le6Lz5X/uSOTpkO+zquLU3bWRV2/+fC7R040PExCM4ncwcGOwTun16NQ+lJUn37C L9brOBGXyuteC0R83VrFRuL0RzEGkOdn1+5dDqnQR5LGQqHvzOaarp2tlOqig5yb BxkZv4U8aQD2jb+n3tqR/jhJolqdQyzEUWrlyv/0He8hd8xE3qU= =8NiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-UsmDA7drkqCS5NFLq7In--