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 6E997138010 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD5CEE0683; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:04:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.viabit.com (mail2.viabit.com [65.246.80.16]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7B0E0605 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:03:56 +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 6B21A37AFA for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 21:03:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=orlitzky.com; s=mail2; t=1346807036; bh=Q1IYcJAPq7ZkiRykjfYqkEh3EZz3UoBn6Dp3sBhpg8Q=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=ee+BIvITo23YGvFc6TbHaKejQjBU2lojQWF+vRfrZyx2DiJQyTGf70LqdSYOhzCwm +PZKZazTm6+YY0XMlbXhMss+icp4toLcL1Hb6mAYMaRifynY+pooN+kkT7Q8tWOJQa rSsQTisvYEexDIunHuOXVtgXMyn7hicgUZnFc58U= Message-ID: <5046A4FB.4000007@orlitzky.com> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:03:55 -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> <50436EDD.3030109@orlitzky.com> <20120904210619.GA18495@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20120904210619.GA18495@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e48280da-623d-4443-bb3c-640baca10da9 X-Archives-Hash: ff490de8f85a0eeca547133ae1041590 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, and isn't a compromise at all.