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 298EA1382C5 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:08:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98B1AE086B; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:08:07 +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 4DE38E085E for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:08:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from katipo2.lan (unknown [203.86.205.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kentnl) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54199335C34 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2018 05:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:07:23 +1300 From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn? Message-ID: <20180310180723.0bf8973a@katipo2.lan> In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; 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; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/eJAmJvd_/siMkHofrYI+dUn"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 1ed5f9c2-9da4-4339-97fa-a1091aeeff50 X-Archives-Hash: 35688f34b0021e26345e6cfa7b804a1f --Sig_/eJAmJvd_/siMkHofrYI+dUn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:13:11 -0800 Matt Turner wrote: > The long tail of packages were packages that by definition didn't > require any maintenance or add to our collective cognitive overhead. > :) In some cases, they "didn't require maintenance" because nobody was using them. And because nobody was using them, nobody realised they were broken. Subsequently, the "has old EAPI" is a good indicator in some cases of "this package has not seen love in a while, and is probably broken" Revisiting old packages like this root out real problems, like "oh, this is so broken, it silently installed but didn't run at all for 3 years...." Which won't become apparent until some poor user attempts to use it, and at that point, you *hope* they file a bug. So the resulting re-stabilization ends up forcibly expanding the test audience, reaffirming "this package that nobody has glanced at for 5+ years still works on every platform we said it did", which is probably an important thing to be able to state when a package is deemed 'stable'. --Sig_/eJAmJvd_/siMkHofrYI+dUn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEPZazbI/qrFT1o9rn6FQySxNmqCAFAlqjaBgACgkQ6FQySxNm qCDTWRAAkww8eigRYV4a/j5wlvNSzp8SeSKILhgrSKxN9elYywzGlEClUhxRfFiU oeQU4EmkWJC2jtL0cE9FJ8BH1dWOcN4B08byttd8dPalX7vUp1AxE3oYpoBDEmE3 pWGXCQQUrZYOwKevNzbb34NQjYGZf09c/2CbqKa1XhiQQbLWiVW5yCHbBnePTmex /xzpFC7Ulwxsz6gNQ9bGEYFbUfJgilcFuvk2FmksIsg6ET4kahReS7XfJq2Z8CAe LSSBTFAUUtnfm7lz6jPXD1NtUhSDkyqsaUqB52VIMZ4U5/H9luI4BPA7diED9LxG DdjqJHnRb0BC+mYcX6uLj4Sm4tktRsuhi7AGDUoY2w5Uwh9HvAfN/+Iu5raLX3aK GtwBa5vwKAvfYmhDZWqDmaUhYnD0nQ4rsHBX7lueP7SDJSmP07t83BhAGb6jTxUR 4YLntnd0PWDrGpCmSDDUNjPfC9J/g/fO6MBLWtclpPQTKkqChhaRwsERz0JzwEk6 HWunV5zB4jfOX5KSOZB7s2Ho2VzLqeFeEN1UPbrd9BH6odpZx+kLNi/L4by0kbaT aOVj4AWJ5e7tYgh2FvwbR1qUmeg7+GVMz1RvSBdGxP9ZBZfIFxtaOobuaj7dzvXd aSOued18sh9u2USXGWbKkefzfJbWvbk0Q+3O03KnCUr+TcXNN1s= =hsxf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/eJAmJvd_/siMkHofrYI+dUn--