From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-83999-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
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 23D591382C5
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue,  6 Mar 2018 22:23:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B7CE5E09E3;
	Tue,  6 Mar 2018 22:23:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(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 641CBE0864
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue,  6 Mar 2018 22:23:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178])
	(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 637FD335C0C
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue,  6 Mar 2018 22:23:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id e30so774184ioc.3
        for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:23:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7FZtYgjwRT0SaUeFxVYAPtszMtjTjh6egJ5Lar+wHSBuPdYDqb6
	gsNWxFushNBLgUD9QIArrW4XMA++iUA6WEpKy4c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtdXdbXJD70vqaVak7KRhi+AGUu2p3oN4K9dMeJ3Hdk6lL4iVx18g4Sk+H81jKxU3zyUfuVmKlQy1eGFKt3RzA=
X-Received: by 10.107.180.196 with SMTP id d187mr23941285iof.187.1520374980715;
 Tue, 06 Mar 2018 14:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
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 14:22:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_n0WcaXXMXFppmCRQW_2wx4XK6Y7wSRQkUOH6an-NsgCg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEdQ38H2fQuxxYg48cyD2__gH22R5xF34JCQrzEa1htDYyz=pQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <32379196.J1ePdnhnO0@pinacolada> <CAGfcS_n0WcaXXMXFppmCRQW_2wx4XK6Y7wSRQkUOH6an-NsgCg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:22:40 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAEdQ38Gb-QsnmUe8CWUUr=M=28VXYRz=1TTnwSqDaMKNm2OxtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEdQ38Gb-QsnmUe8CWUUr=M=28VXYRz=1TTnwSqDaMKNm2OxtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn?
To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: 2464e156-b5dd-4460-b19d-1e5fb24b8e27
X-Archives-Hash: a3d25cc47f7752faea5f72e326ee4575

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org> 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.