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 721BA138010 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:03:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 08C6EE0417 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 15:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76D221C066 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:16:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.132] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.240.69.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF40333D8F1 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50893BB9.1010209@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:16:41 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.7) Gecko/20120925 Thunderbird/10.0.7 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] EAPI bump should require revbump References: <50815B0B.7060705@gentoo.org> <5089335D.7070405@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <5089335D.7070405@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: f14871f8-1d99-4094-b119-10f575ab39ae X-Archives-Hash: dd7523366498ad7e737d07c42f33c861 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 25/10/12 08:41 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: > On 19.10.2012 16.52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> Hey all -- there was just a discussion in #gentoo-dev about >> this, so following up here.. >> > I don't think changing EAPI for stable packages is allowed. That > means we are only talking about testing packages for this thread > and I think there it's fine to follow the established rule already > mentioned. If developers break things continuously without > testing, take up the issue with QA. [ Merge! ] Also please post these things > to gentoo-dev mailing list next time. This mailing list is for > project wide non technical issues. > It was suggested to me to post here because #1) it's a policy discussion rather than a technical one, and #2) it reaches a bigger audience as many devs have tuned out to gentoo-dev@ .. As for your previous statement -- I was not aware of a policy that excludes EAPI bumps from occurring on stable packages. This would certainly suffice to alleviate the original concerns and probably be more effective as a policy than always requiring revbump on EAPI change. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlCJO7kACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBSzQD8Cj5o3NdNSRU7d/GmUwPw5nnl whHrdX4s7kYjU7uMZz4A/izpnDcekv/QNaskk6LUHuUPnFNPcRMGc2nlY0qACZYY =JHtD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----