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 F3E85138010 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 13:47:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DD9FE03E0; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 13:47:40 +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 6D634E01C5 for ; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 13:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkwj4 with SMTP id j4so1874842bkw.40 for ; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:46:42 -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=VKy2f7B6kUrgtcPttMr7i1fp6hkl1zUA3cVecxTf26I=; b=pDwroNSgBHj8JGtWkLO17pDVxqBgHsS5V2pMbKn/na70CX8QmIaVBBIKULnf3ASdtV IssfUYdsn7Sku9OMTDx8G4WMihpGp5r8c/nc71Mqr7iV5HEVMF4i7dqWvgVGVKKFlUfa MJgKihtKKzNe5ABTO+wtOeCTm5tqDJle3bHaDSvcU8yPQVZKGYodcGVG7kx6DrfrIXJt x9hroCtS3fyeqsTJMk6uZ/zDuK2beqT7K38XG3YQPOaOKrp8TY85fP0fVEQa+V08J95s PXN8WIy9f6ysA5hhBpzy2sJmKVDM05BaPFIgGp2lWdbbwo3x3k2YRYpDPYjeXqCWEQ+9 6xWA== 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 10.204.129.23 with SMTP id m23mr6003298bks.28.1346593602302; Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.205.65.136 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Sep 2012 06:46:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201209021510.55447.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <1650487.RNHkTcOSMI@elia> <201208311103.19398.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201209021510.55447.dilfridge@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 09:46:42 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3hkco4pbeBJ05gFttH3cm2XZWAU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: bb4a08eb-6e1f-4eeb-9152-973239403cbe X-Archives-Hash: d5984a43df20dde7ce108c58b3284aef On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so > complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance... Ok, it REALLY annoys me when people pull out this kind of a line in an argument... If it isn't all that complicated or involved and it just makes so much sense, then why do we bother to waste time asking for it to be made policy, since obviously everybody will just do it anyway... Believe it or not, people who take up an opposing side in a debate don't ALWAYS do it because they're simply dumber than you. That is, unless they're arguing with me... :) > > As an additional bonus this keeps your memory fresh about all the great new > features... Yes, but keeping around all those old EAPIs keeps your memory fresh about how those ones work. As an additional bonus, you don't have to bother to figure out how the new ones work unless you actually need a feature offered by them. :) Rich