From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FAB138010 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:30:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DC0921C00B; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:30:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com (mail-pb0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D308721C003 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:29:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbro2 with SMTP id ro2so1741624pbb.40 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:29:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/p8jdhMZgf8am/C/MGJh3AGuuWOIbrf0PQMWD77aYGE=; b=ddcP8FO1PQUvwPeLLnX2Iox6BlbcdCeOl+sPhLEehCVPWUYDa0yNEIF6GtUmb4yQjH eDntzVGgSZAzCkwlZybIbWi6rLeAZOAu4CqCvwvnyONwr3w9o3dYQcXUesqedt1VeUhV mHVrEb1GpOMbwrVZxyyz3Li19b6eJDxgLIetaJ7pi4bkj/SLwIT82a6Zi1+4hV04hRj8 Sb89FXw3BqkPnbYq/Cevn1FwboXqXO1Zb2itkAHePmAV4ri37fiu53TLvmanPVv6uSpQ 97glAMTXjlh/+ksJQqkoGHdAI+j8a7imQGDWKHhyvKe00ITLnhzIbgxGLttM9vC9KSTD 9KrA== Received: by 10.66.83.166 with SMTP id r6mr51228572pay.25.1346880555157; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y11sm175188pbv.66.2012.09.05.14.29.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 05 Sep 2012 14:29:14 -0700 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 14:29:14 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Michael Orlitzky Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage Message-ID: <20120905212914.GB18495@localhost> References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <201208311103.19398.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201209021510.55447.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <50436EDD.3030109@orlitzky.com> <20120904210619.GA18495@localhost> <5046A4FB.4000007@orlitzky.com> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5046A4FB.4000007@orlitzky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 3230db40-af46-467e-945f-6f4324c0759d X-Archives-Hash: 0044a1ed0dc9b46e8984ed20d373747d On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:03:55PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > >> > >> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs > >> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug > >> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is > >> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. > > > > If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure. > > > > If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's > > noise and it's annoying. EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to > > move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but > > arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or > > legwork done if not) isn't helpful. Kind of equivalent to zero-day > > bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness. > > Except this is what we have now, Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane. > and isn't a compromise at all. I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required outcome of this. Given the choice between something productive, and something not productive, you don't choose the quasi-productive solution. Bluntly, chasing EAPI versions w/out gain is a waste of time; others may think "but it should be EAPI4- the latest!"- and they'd be wrong. You bump when there is a reason to do so, or when from a maintenance standoint you've got time (now) to do so and can push it forward- getting ahead of future work. Keep in mind the rule "every change carries a risk"- while the risk is generally stupidly low, it's something I don't think you're being cognizant of in this notion of trying to get everything at EAPI whatever. Filing a bunch of "please bump this to EAPI-whatever" is just annoying nagging, it doesn't accomplish anything nor is the ticket particularly useful on it's own. A "Please bump to EAPI4 due to issue xyz" is useful- there is a core reason beyond "hey, EAPI4 is the latest AND EVERYTHING MUST BE THE LATEST GREATEST!!!" :) Same angle for EAPI5 and user patching... yes, devs will have a reason to move it forward, but user patching is going to be used by a *small* fraction of our userbase. Meaning if you want it, you're likely going to need to do the legwork bumping things forward, else you're on the devs time/prioritizations. Not saying it's perfect, but the comments above are realistic rather than trying to compromise against the realities of the situation. ;) ~harring