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 85035138010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:25:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52D3121C002; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:25:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E1321C010 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:24:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id jg15so467047bkc.40 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:24:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=hfLf0TMBvU6XXU+0u2VZRCA243X28WKvWcCa6rGOODE=; b=p6CWFGKOGcMcOL0bsd3GBqUS5UlPzhm3Slyrtg3DeTzLIaT2cnN2CSIxHJfoLgMLSN rEjTlM+e2O7sYnmAS2EpNj59YYQSlx/TDChXS0JromShCuxDn8lXrvVCh5lePJwjhitp EsSa3w0xfXnGAjLjHvM7ubXiXvpewJoDkuBkqayA+Bv74qYXBn5VEsXIp+8obfTFgzTF QIicSqTJq4eOrtH417xrk4HgLyGTstW/zQHf7xn72tfckqxlFW8RYLw3LqTtf329qyDx cGvPZrDN99zcFdQqEEa+WdJTTD3bNXX3ZynrPaOTleATD4pQPnCcYRwhTl5sityE3fYg rq2A== 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 10.204.11.133 with SMTP id t5mr1367871bkt.14.1350746684013; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.156.147 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 08:24:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1350713099.12879.54.camel@belkin4> References: <20121012125315.33500bbb@sera-17.lan> <20121012211023.592e82a1@gentoo.org> <20121013082820.75d280a1@sera-17.lan> <20121016234230.3b79a2fe@gentoo.org> <1350495278.2447.33.camel@belkin4> <20121017220707.02c6f5ac@gentoo.org> <1350575341.2447.40.camel@belkin4> <1350587136.2447.47.camel@belkin4> <1350667312.12879.11.camel@belkin4> <20121019145105.4927316b@gentoo.org> <1350670155.12879.22.camel@belkin4> <20121019154733.31b2284c@gentoo.org> <1350675125.12879.44.camel@belkin4> <5081AD7B.1040100@gentoo.org> <1350676398.12879.50.camel@belkin4> <5081BA9E.2080907@gentoo.org> <1350713099.12879.54.camel@belkin4> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 11:24:43 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: -SE6AqJ_qPn_dAmOEPNkkT0mN3s Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Drop EAPI=0 requirement for system packages. From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: 641cc749-e9ac-4e0a-bfbd-5b1e2f592aca X-Archives-Hash: 0d2fa1085c3ea58f4bf2e385a40ab953 On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > That time you think you are saving, will be need to be lost if, for > example, some QA policy appears in the future to move to try to run > tests in parallel when possible, or force verbose output. So you're suggesting that I should invest 15 minutes of my time now so that I MIGHT not have to invest 15 minutes of my time later? And that I should continue to invest 15 minutes every time a new EAPI comes along? That's like asking a banker to give you $5 now, so that in a year or two you might be able to give them $5 back. If we are going to tell people to do something NOW then there should be a tangible benefit NOW, or at least on some reasonably near date you can actually identify. For packages where users get some immediate benefit from an EAPI bump I'm all for pushing for them. However, I wouldn't name the project the "Tree Wide EAPI4 bump." Instead I'd call it the "Tree Wide Parallel Testing Initiative" or "Eliminate Revdep-rebuild Bonanza" or whatever. Yes, I realize that sometimes A has to happen before B, and I'm not suggesting that we can't plan ahead. However, we should be planning ahead for something in particular, and actually have the plan. It does us no good to have a "Tree Wide Parallel Testing Initiative" if somebody else isn't at least working on the "Tree Wide Parallel Testing Tinderbox." If all you're telling me is that I should spend 15 min bumping to EAPI 2, then 3, then 4, so that eventually I won't have to spend 15 min upgrading from EAPI 2 straight to 7, I can't really see the point. Rich