From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-89294-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 41C99138334
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:07:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0EF8E08BB;
	Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:07:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4])
	(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 7C584E0825
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:07:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: mjo)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1DCD034CF1C
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2019 17:07:23 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Why adding python3_8 to Gentoo sucks?
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
References: <ccde039ec427a525ddbd32fbd929e1032c2b2bf7.camel@gentoo.org>
 <4798502.u5CIKBo2SD@t490>
 <7b0a4f20cb73bbbd7acb3e1efd7fe9f541ccd2cf.camel@gentoo.org>
 <4009341.1O8DcbvQnu@t490>
 <a753b97868c5e36e5c82a50899b9085d600faaf0.camel@gentoo.org>
 <dde7716b-3526-fd1a-a2ee-76460bd9e0aa@gentoo.org>
 <w6ga78wudrv.fsf@kph.uni-mainz.de>
From: Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org>
Message-ID: <dcd0baaa-233d-6c7c-f38c-7311f33ac47d@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 12:07:18 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.1
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
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <w6ga78wudrv.fsf@kph.uni-mainz.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 51040015-4ea2-435f-945a-151118745b13
X-Archives-Hash: 0b4f796caba499af5c6cc4c39a33a704

On 11/16/19 8:55 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> 
> This is in the context of revision bumps, not version bumps.

The things allowed in a revision bump are,

  * New EAPI,
  * Adding/dropping eclasses,
  * Adding/dropping dependencies,
  * Adding/dropping a phase function,
  * Literally anything, except changing SRC_URI to a new version.

Everything that can go wrong in a new version can go wrong in a new
revision, and almost none of them should go straight to stable.


> Also, the item immediately preceding it clarifies that any
> non-trivial changes require dropping to ~arch.

I don't think it reads that way. The bullet list consists of
not-mutually-exclusive items, and it's not clear if the items are to be
"and"ed or "or"ed in the first place.