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 0B910138CE3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:33:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BAEF3E0BD0; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:33:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D341FE0BC3 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:33:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E65B233F5D7 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:33:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52F8F182.8050504@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:34:26 -0500 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 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] [RFC] Tightening EAPI rules References: <52F8C97D.4030403@gentoo.org> <52F8D2E7.3030901@gentoo.org> <20140210153558.66217d33@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20140210153558.66217d33@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0b26e5fd-f5c5-4dc6-a743-466b75d04c19 X-Archives-Hash: c9db4b07689958a69b2ddfe27218b958 On 02/10/2014 09:35 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> one and possibly needed features. You will connect the question of >> >"are we ready to deprecate X" with the question "we need to introduce >> >Y for needed features a, b and c." > It is hard to grasp for me for when features from a newer EAPI would > delay the migration, do you have an example? > That's not what i mean. It is possible that we may want the newer EAPI for the features it brings but be as yet unwilling to deprecated the older EAPI for stability reasons. Even if the newer EAPI is a proper superset of the older, hidden implementation changes have not been tested well and we might want to be more caution about deprecating our older yet very stable EAPI. EAPI=4 is very stable right now. I have more confidence in it that 5 simply because of the coverage and testing its gotten. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA