From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lc3eo-0006bY-NU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:13:34 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F8A0E05BF; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f157.google.com (mail-bw0-f157.google.com [209.85.218.157]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D84E05BF for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:13:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz1 with SMTP id 1so5997996bwz.10 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:13:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type; bh=DwflEppmzqAL3caiAJ1rCSrmus+00wjrDkvnvi9kDvw=; b=X8dehhlGAqXq8OFQduvmRFGD/stjNoxqfidYXkmu4fmz7Xq+jKLBr8wr1gWCz/zL6f w+2GIQOlAddI0CCIy2ck3Y+kur3aOgzNnq4V4W8llpJ6U3rRia5Z1X1iUZem+wkJyFVS XRBjQc1jc9Si/KTIPAexfKpNPNsJBwH/+xBZo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:x-mailer :mime-version:content-type; b=mqs39y09DfsA9NfPev+lhAUKVQ34Lj6jReSlckeLIaojv8bgZzr1//2OsJOBxlvuSg IlxaoRR1tetJAfOTqfY3wyzShUzZ0o94GIDPb+iPSEHIA5vAfRO+1SSllYsS9uLkgi7O xundAIbSnD0mI2bm2aizifNikAmQ1cJWIltWU= Received: by 10.103.228.7 with SMTP id f7mr39952mur.130.1235506409824; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:13:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowcone (92-235-187-79.cable.ubr18.sgyl.blueyonder.co.uk [92.235.187.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x37sm194589ugc.15.2009.02.24.12.13.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:13:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:13:19 +0000 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Issues regarding glep-55 (Was: [gentoo-council] Re: Preliminary Meeting-Topics for 12 February 2009) Message-ID: <20090224201319.173144e6@snowcone> In-Reply-To: <20090224150729.2c83596f@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com> References: <1234257125.18160.2016.camel@localhost> <20090212160045.GB3642@comet> <20090212161644.GD3642@comet> <20090212162103.256b003f@snowcone> <20090212171055.GA3652@comet> <20090212172109.778fb268@snowcone> <20090212173743.GD3652@comet> <20090212180350.0d9a9df5@snowcone> <1235037961.13198.779.camel@localhost> <20090219125124.33eaa66c@snowcone> <1235077892.13198.1923.camel@localhost> <20090222171658.278ae167@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <49A1E1CB.1000806@gentoo.org> <20090222234800.29d64b8d@snowcone> <49A206A7.3050604@gentoo.org> <49A39CE7.4010201@gentoo.org> <49A3AAA1.6080207@gentoo.org> <49A3B947.2020907@gentoo.org> <49A3D0F6.6080307@gentoo.org> <49A41656.7020100@gentoo.org> <20090224155654.602f6c88@snowcone> <20090224122527.1e800f30@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com> <20090224182023.5d858986@snowcone> <20090224140845.73053f4c@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com> <20090224191928.6b9e52db@snowcone> <20090224150729.2c83596f@vrm378-02.vrm378.am.mot.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/AHeGyuOxd5KVw2QNOhrd.TR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: 0967241e-fd6d-413a-a660-13536bcd6fa4 X-Archives-Hash: f7ce78ad3e9b80b3f9c6a2d31c2071d9 --Sig_/AHeGyuOxd5KVw2QNOhrd.TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:07:29 -0500 Jim Ramsay wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > People are struggling with the one level scheme we have now. We're > > already having to produce fancy tables and summaries for new EAPIs > > because people can't keep track of when features came along. Two > > levels just means no-one will remember any of it. >=20 > I disagree with your assertion that people are struggling - I think > things are very nicely documented in PMS and the devmanual, which are > where all EAPI changes should be documented in the future, regardless > if you specify the EAPI in the file, the extension, or both. They only ended up nicely documented after people moaned a lot that they were having a hard time keeping track of EAPIs... > Two levels really just means that any fancy tables will have to have > one extra row (or perhaps a series of fancy tables) and any summaries > will have to have an extra section added whenever a new filename > extension becomes necessary. It'll mean people will carry on having to use the tables, and won't start remembering things as time goes on. > If I understand the '.eapi3.eb' to which you make passing reference, > this is just a fancy hand-wavy way to say "Look, the true .eb > extension won't ever change, just the .eapi3 part which isn't > technically the extension..." which isn't a compromise at all - It's > an attempt to (cleverly?) obfuscate where in the filename the EAPI is > stored. Yup. And yet there're people who are perfectly happy with .eapi3.eb who hate GLEP 55. That should tell you all you need to know about what's going on here... --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/AHeGyuOxd5KVw2QNOhrd.TR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmkVOQACgkQ96zL6DUtXhEuCwCeJ38Y5Ccj7QuMM+8iLZUCWMsp 4n0An0CLiQOtZthBwGbQq63B/NHp9HVB =9tGn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/AHeGyuOxd5KVw2QNOhrd.TR--