From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 01:48:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1770446.Gre0I1ep2X@pinacolada> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEdQ38ES-v5mHnpWpZUYK4DYipFR3C8DRO_qaZ_iZNENLnUWdg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1991 bytes --]
> >
> > * Mainly, less stuff to memorize. I'll be throwing a party on the day when
> > the last EAPI=0 ebuild is gone. (In the retirement home, probably.)
>
> This is the argument made by others about the cognitive overhead of
> remembering all the EAPI differences. If the packages are untouched
> for ages and don't require maintenance, my claim is that there is no
> cognitive load to begin with.
That stops the moment something could use a USE- or slot operator dependency
(because of a tree-wide change that also affects the old package). Then the
EAPI bump suddenly becomes urgent (and a minor QA-like commit becomes a major
change).
And no bugs probably just means no users that could file bugs. We really need
something like gentoostats...
> > [Interestingly, as long as no specific efforts are made, the number of
> > ebuilds in all deprecated EAPI decreases roughly equally and
> > exponentially. That means the probability of any old ebuild to be removed
> > within a certain time interval is a constant as function of time...]
>
> This is a great point in favor of *not* bothering to proactively bump EAPI.
Not really. It's an asymptotic curve. *If* you want to have it gone
*completely* at some point, you have to start actively working on that. The
only question is when, earlier or later...
I'd guess having an EAPI approach <~ 1% of the tree is probably as good as any
other criterion.
[[What is interesting but offtopic is that the exponential decay is the same
for a long timeframe, see [*] third panel... the downward slope of the white
line for EAPI=0 barely changes, and the other EAPI run parallel to it as long
as nothing special happens... This means that Gentoo isn't dying after all,
since the same developer activity takes place!]]
[*] https://www.akhuettel.de/~huettel/plots/eapi.php
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-07 0:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-06 1:52 [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn? Matt Turner
2018-03-06 5:56 ` Kent Fredric
2018-03-06 22:11 ` Matt Turner
2018-03-06 9:00 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2018-03-06 22:13 ` Matt Turner
2018-03-10 5:07 ` Kent Fredric
2018-03-06 13:53 ` Michał Górny
2018-03-06 21:17 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2018-03-06 21:35 ` Rich Freeman
2018-03-06 22:22 ` Matt Turner
2018-03-06 22:27 ` Alec Warner
2018-03-06 23:39 ` Matt Turner
2018-03-07 0:12 ` Rich Freeman
2018-03-06 22:21 ` Matt Turner
2018-03-07 0:48 ` Andreas K. Huettel [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1770446.Gre0I1ep2X@pinacolada \
--to=dilfridge@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox