From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-2175-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080F0138010 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0D1621C09B for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk (smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk [212.23.1.3]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F00D21C032 for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:51:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [62.3.120.142] (helo=NeddySeagoon) by smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>) id 1TPg0f-0001qF-PX for gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 20:51:05 +0000 Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 21:51:05 +0100 From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] EAPI bump should require revbump To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <50815B0B.7060705@gentoo.org> (from axs@gentoo.org on Fri Oct 19 14:52:11 2012) X-Mailer: Balsa 2.4.12 Message-Id: <1350766265.2900.1@NeddySeagoon> Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-Smarthost03-IP: [62.3.120.142] X-Archives-Salt: c8524314-b6f5-401e-ac04-c79a7b48e247 X-Archives-Hash: 73e1b90a4e7355f2338d03360f61530c On 2012.10.19 14:52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > Hey all -- there was just a discussion in #gentoo-dev about this, so > following up here.. >=20 > Due to the fact that an EAPI-bump can imply different behaviour from > eclasses or the PM, an EAPI-bump should in most cases also require an > ebuild revbump. >=20 > Why i'm bringing this up here, is because Chansaw and I were=20 > wondering > if common sense will not be enough to ensure this and it should be > made a policy to revbump when migrating to a new EAPI ? >=20 >=20 Common sense is much rarer than you might expect. It should be explicit. --=20 Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees =