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 080A5138350 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:20:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C1F35E0894; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (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 A4FC7E087A for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id d62so10015996oia.11 for ; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 04:20:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=S1L32HTnb2vbOugEylnyTU2adKi82/ZAD2ncJPLZiu0=; b=W8w2CzQgHlW62aniW6AE/nQvVdKhGpEaLOQUsOLvuS9UPMlXEUSdSwEFeZtCTrCVXM /ElZ9V+Pd4Jc1FhwhnV/j91zQFeI8KqYlV9iu+M47QOEJ4dedltgCQwnoFmhuKqyH38E d/8EZqmKWRCEh9fitvyQ1t3da041Seuqss6KnLczQJLuKh2ZpaLGnZKKux9lHgJxxU72 V1vsBmxoW/k3n2DhBA1ZEgbzRK1keVrcO45X4GH0hRA1JoIeMR4LObd4oORDKx6onm9I nvfjyCUIHpaWAgPGdslxl18xEjk6WbnLO72rCO/iol1BGTcZAZaEbPvnPKWVC1kbH3iQ zOMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=S1L32HTnb2vbOugEylnyTU2adKi82/ZAD2ncJPLZiu0=; b=Pk2W/ASxqGR5dqQewJA1eoFW8fI5IpTGo6JEWZQXFG+IecC7ImENniGwvOhlpa92OK F3Lh9EOWgLKPiwzoRnZlYUAIj4JH1Hkzm0wgjMNUHRdUAz3ws8h4Jk0TliLTodo2W5aE 3ooMc+GtyzfR2ABG/y6wvkyUCgU3ob+73a3pdX3rzH7lNyBIqvGfPxGTkMabohDab0Ys UND8ReLlbxfdAcLdrDwxRksL3/zGbRRtGAy8Nb40X2nSmmkre8fi8S2eb2D4BrYr4PGv /BRFGVBKU0UNCfIXqzM8AdHzQ7gL9jy0foojW+VhwldqbuDjwEY2cZaLdLqgWKQSBeQz 7QJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVBlDPOenmb/LZNJXA097Bs0zT9i8xb84G6hYkTZ+cdFIkznMoT 7F82UAqvgz5e9GfmCiTv3ugLoiNvqSBx9Tj+sRBDndKV X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxaB2O2epxxtvoeWuPzYUV5J85j7OTU1rF8cjfK7LsS3kk/fmeSG2BGE+YnzkitxoRM2dLaPDoIShtE7BqP5xw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:b15:: with SMTP id s21mr10602233oij.123.1583151646179; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 04:20:46 -0800 (PST) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200225195903.99dff9f8fd997e62dafdbc4a@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: From: Raymond Jennings Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 04:19:58 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - council meeting 2020-03-08 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f05ef059fde3797" X-Archives-Salt: 053555a8-9265-4632-87e9-281b5c3fd923 X-Archives-Hash: 2c1f727335f2b1e4e1505cdf7f4693a6 --0000000000007f05ef059fde3797 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:57 AM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny w= rote: > On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 19:59 -0800, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > > Hello, > > > > on 2020-03-08, the Gentoo council will meet at > > 19:00 UTC in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode. > > > > Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discus= s > > or vote on. > > Following the discussion within the QA team, I'd like to ask the Council > to clarify whether EAPI 4 ban applies to revision bumps as a result of > dependency changes? > Personally I don't think it should, especially if the change is just fixing something that broke. > I think the key point in banning EAPIs is that the maintainer (or > generally, someone caring about the package in question) should be > responsible for the EAPI bump. I don't think anybody should be forced > to do that when in middle of large batch of changes (read: when I only > touch the package because it's blocking me). > Seconded. > In this particular case, I'm thinking of revbumps due to dependency > changes. Say, if I do a change in a dependency *I* maintain, and have > to fix a large number of revdeps, I don't think it's fair to expect me > to EAPI-bump some packages I don't maintain. The main difference is > that we're talking of dep change + revbump that can be linted via > pkgcheck/repoman vs. EAPI bump that needs full scale testing. > I second the motion. I think that certain changes can be "grandfathered" if they can be done without breaking anything > -- > Best regards, > Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny > > --0000000000007f05ef059fde3797 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 3:57 AM Micha=C5= =82 G=C3=B3rny <m= gorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 19:59 -080= 0, Georgy Yakovlev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> on 2020-03-08, the Gentoo council will meet at
> 19:00 UTC in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode.
>
> Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discu= ss
> or vote on.

Following the discussion within the QA team, I'd like to ask the Counci= l
to clarify whether EAPI 4 ban applies to revision bumps as a result of
dependency changes?

Personally I don= 9;t think it should, especially if the change is just fixing something that= broke.
=C2=A0
I think the key point in banning EAPIs is that the maintainer (or
generally, someone caring about the package in question) should be
responsible for the EAPI bump.=C2=A0 I don't think anybody should be fo= rced
to do that when in middle of large batch of changes (read: when I only
touch the package because it's blocking me).

S= econded.
=C2=A0
In this particular case, I'm thinking of revbumps due to dependency
changes.=C2=A0 Say, if I do a change in a dependency *I* maintain, and have=
to fix a large number of revdeps, I don't think it's fair to expect= me
to EAPI-bump some packages I don't maintain.=C2=A0 The main difference = is
that we're talking of dep change + revbump that can be linted via
pkgcheck/repoman vs. EAPI bump that needs full scale testing.

I second the motion.

I think that certain changes can be= "grandfathered" if they can be done without breaking anything
--
Best regards,
Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny

--0000000000007f05ef059fde3797--