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 D8DC2138010 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 14:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BB4BEE03E4; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 14:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.viabit.com (mail2.viabit.com [65.246.80.16]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C6C3E0212 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 14:36:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.29.6] (vpn1.metro-data.com [65.213.236.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.viabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5E7937AEB for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 10:36:15 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=orlitzky.com; s=mail2; t=1346596576; bh=2js0Y/UqLDyWoYUmJmYGesqcmHZDJ3QA/aU1Gq+lfq0=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=NvVS32VM29mRINjdcw7tQj0GFcY5oQkozmpjszpnncEHNQ7fE51XDS1pyNnIw6lG0 CVQUGZEEwHRk2GIBIQssN1z/mdjc4W/XLoWSpAiPUIN/xrx2XBdUAy3+W5ntNdffIw 9TF90zmLNOcuhj07tH/5bpxpHF0rTMnrcKCNNHwk= Message-ID: <50436EDD.3030109@orlitzky.com> Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:36:13 -0400 From: Michael Orlitzky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120823 Thunderbird/10.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <201208311103.19398.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201209021510.55447.dilfridge@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2c1e2487-b751-4794-86dc-8450f0c6e631 X-Archives-Hash: e4cf098a449129f3317d9b4364199c4d On 09/02/2012 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >> What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so >> complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance... > > Ok, it REALLY annoys me when people pull out this kind of a line > in an argument... If it isn't all that complicated or involved and it > just makes so much sense, then why do we bother to waste time asking > for it to be made policy, since obviously everybody will just do it > anyway... > > Believe it or not, people who take up an opposing side in a debate > don't ALWAYS do it because they're simply dumber than you. That is, > unless they're arguing with me... :) > I think everyone would be happier if all ebuilds in the tree were EAPI4. On the other hand, Rich is right that making this a policy will have the opposite of the intended effect: developers just won't fix bugs in EAPI<4 ebuilds when they don't have time to do the EAPI bump (one could easily spend a few hours on this). 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.