Re: [gentoo-dev] The fallacies of GLEP55

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2237 bytes --]

On Sat, 16 May 2009 18:31:38 +0200
Tobias Klausmann <klausman@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > So we're not talking about .ebuild-2 for EAPI=2, .ebuild-3 for
> > > EAPI=3 etc? That would just be silly and it was the first idea I
> > > got when I saw the proposal.
> > 
> > Yes, yes we are. That's just one change, from a static string to a
> > pattern for a string.
> > 
> > Heck, pretend GLEP 55 says .eapi-X.eb instead if it makes you happy.
> 
> It doesn't. I forsee a non-trivial amount of extra work, breakage
> and pain with a moving extension. And not anywhere near enough
> benefit in exchange for it.

Why? What's the big deal with .ebuild-? or .eapi-?.eb instead
of .ebuild?

> I think wanting incremental updates for version specs is a dream
> we should abandon.

It's an easy goal that we can deliver without much work. Ignoring it,
on the other hand, means holding Gentoo back unnecessarily every time
we want to change something.

> My point is this: from experience I suspect having a hard change
> once and having easy progress on either side of it is preferable
> to having mid-range complications all the time.

.ebuild-? is not complicated.

> > Well, I strongly doubt that anyone's already thought of all the
> > useful changes we might want to make in the future, so I don't
> > think proposing a solution that assumes that they have is a good
> > idea.
> 
> I think it's a river we should think about once we reach it.

Why? We know we'll reach it. Pretending we won't just means when we do
reach it, we'll still be crossing it on foot rather than in a
helicopter.

> > Otherwise, in another year or two we'll just be back to "well we
> > need to change extensions again, but let's just do it as a second
> > one-off thing".
> 
> My experience tells me that with proper preparation of *this*
> change, that can be pushed past the "in the next ten years" mark.
> And that is close enough to "indefinitely" for me. 

The only way it'll be "in the next ten years" rather than "in the next
two years" is if Gentoo continues its current approach of making
changes require every single person to agree...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]