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 AB56E1382C5 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:39:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 04A81E09D6; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.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 9928DE0950 for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com (mail-it0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 378A4335C0A for ; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id w19so14329802ite.0 for ; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:39:36 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FHHvoaiXYkX6cvVDkd96GPDi7YtlYrq+RodLF60m95J3mVZL6h MxiQAEtX7Tc2QW6+/a9nmO5bsgJlOj/ARB2GHxk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvcTu9CBC+0L9MeGAwGG/nFiRYHrLWXXOeDkIGz2+OUBBDIUiJQXWif03F5X8DlfOAVzWbIVsSjydPgapamFos= X-Received: by 10.36.142.2 with SMTP id h2mr21220727ite.5.1520379574443; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 15:39:34 -0800 (PST) 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 Received: by 10.2.168.15 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:39:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <32379196.J1ePdnhnO0@pinacolada> From: Matt Turner Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 15:39:13 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn? To: gentoo development Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: c7330a26-728e-44e2-8a84-a5b0751294fd X-Archives-Hash: 6aca73bc14e59a6ab3eacdaa4520e8cd On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Is it worth the effort? Yes, see below. >> >> Is it a high priority task? No. >> >> >> > >> > It sounds like all that has been done is to log a tracker and create >> > some bugs. That is hardly a major burden on anybody. If it nudges >> > people to bump the EAPI when they're doing other work so much the >> > better, but there doesn't seem to be a drop-dead date yet. >> > >> > If devs don't want to think about EAPI cleanup they don't have to right >> > now. >> >> No, not true. Look at the blocking bugs. We're asking arch teams to >> retest and restabilize ebuilds whose only difference is the EAPI bump. >> > > Ultimate the arch teams are supposed to test the ebuild (that it works), so > when we change the EAPI of the ebuild re-testing is required. Of course, but that's not the point...