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 4CBAF1382C5 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:12:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A2BAE0A64; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:12:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl0-x243.google.com (mail-pl0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::243]) (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 A4588E0A5E for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:12:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl0-x243.google.com with SMTP id c11-v6so301553plo.0 for ; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:12:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=JamQ/kLpBFQStzy0v3Tn7CB/mgRTPgKFx7k/VIwdwVk=; b=QGswuaS7RheJX83prx4w0l5Ul+6Ktk8wIHu6caDvS0TbRBiTPmD2KcQ34RFvAceq70 BaVB3Kl/ojB9wFVRl3TLDKspgENGvqMYD7P0RywfNYesiMXfixtvmDsUFyfFGRsZ4Gl1 TAXghgGBmgYkLZ7El+Qjo96pIF3ZNUsjA84DDyD31w9vRBpv3fCQUSrpY+3PvUSH7Awu oqgmoQ5CvZ4pDacbgAGfNuZbMKJHji6QtysHUFZllHcl9QhYvWk/jKAHsFknDfAAEkzv JNCoPzr7qHreFdlNON/8gSbUtO4uUMZ5tuR/hFPQO/XCcRNQPLOUzqDGCqD/mJ9iI9C7 ezJg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JamQ/kLpBFQStzy0v3Tn7CB/mgRTPgKFx7k/VIwdwVk=; b=oFsC0wJmmqnPa7fWi7DEWhmbtc2ZdbYQiPozQqjVKa6vlf7Dku/HitFZg1ycOxjctO nrxnyvNZJEFPkMq4XXCGMxJLwCIGSsyZhvL4aWtc5Uq310CGrzOUFaw/JE9RWj/18cX7 WVtsLYvGs4cLecDoWINudD5YO7/L/3RFUa/sZL6hMNlosCtssn8+7Ue+tehBCmAg8aRb VOMjl17BLwytN/IpsWsEtay6fNQiwNKsQ/6OY+C0rCUrVTooHL/9FGc7pEnnnEF5C9gN iRNPdG6Ed4fJJbl2A8/SjRH1/LZ45unlojq+1AX2gbKQ0QxE73YTtYm3aDYs2UqL9yPf 5AUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCKFbt19qrF+v0X0K3Lm40XXlldY6dLo7cBSHgugH65dZoLFnov rGVMovDoGVBGitNb70HxDhJQ7h6tyOChBa63t9zu/Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELsJebqyoEkZ/wvCNOXYieaa/PYfgIlbLL9NsFxrJ+wDMnQwAUqhL/FwcWemK9n9mEr9tj3+KxrXKwHuZumymIA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:3001:: with SMTP id u1-v6mr18132670plb.254.1520381551230; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 16:12:31 -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 Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.236.166.8 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:12:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <32379196.J1ePdnhnO0@pinacolada> From: Rich Freeman Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 19:12:30 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: H6y2zf5wJPZ7oGBjvXSKvFHF5dU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Is removing old EAPIs worth the churn? To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 3f336c69-b300-426b-934a-3242fe2bbd71 X-Archives-Hash: 8e43531db95a758bdab20a96c6dd5941 On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > 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... > Strictly speaking nobody is forcing the arch teams to test any of these bumps either. They are as free to choose to work on those bugs as anybody else. -- Rich