Re: [gentoo-dev] Reverse use of Python/Ruby versions

["William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1416 bytes --]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 19:59:22 -0400
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> How do you plan to test a thousand packages against the new version
> of python, and then revision/stabilize all of the broken ones
> immediately? Or is the plan to just break everyone's systems, and ask
> them to report bugs for the things that stopped working?
 
If packages have tests, running those is one way. If they do not, and
its say a library. Long as other packages that use the library
build/run against it then it should be ok. It would get trickier for
things lacking tests.

Breaking already occurs now but in the form of breaking updates and
causing users to fiddle with the targets.

I am NOT talking about stabilization at all. Simple reducing the burden
of adding targets to ebuild, and users having to fiddle with targets as
they come and go.

> I think what you will actually get as a result is that nobody will
> ever add a new version of python to the tree, because you've just
> made it a huge ordeal to do so.

This is actually the opposite. To add a new version as is right now.
You have to edit every Python or Ruby ebuild. Otherwise they cannot use
that new version. There is tremendous work as is now. Not to mention a
really bad end user experience.

This would considerable reduce the workload. Not to mention making life
better for end users.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]