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 0FAA01381FA for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 23:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A48BE0944; Thu, 29 May 2014 23:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (mail-ve0-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C502FE0935 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 23:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id jz11so1246851veb.35 for ; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=8qx06KaLTJumQx05XnwZAhm/no5qJytgAkBZuBrOY34=; b=EJU1h0Zh8p5YrTbYo+sJDfnI+DdPAdwz9Y2kYmbHeVd0Ka57uzXkBM5njx67gS9+iM +62ne/FbD2GO7WtopyInCmRdwYwxCOXClknbCfQCSdiMDinWtqX2NNHwWC3F9t++8hb+ 9Jj9D4tQmDhutyeuhaqob69cMIqoyY0CxUTWtBX0S7BQOMBGbNpQ4Dj1w5rsP3Eqmce/ tCMTYzOZZlqsdSrrYpuhZZHDX3lFvmAyG+EBQiz/cFYlZ+3VIv8ATmHLnVyk1L8o/SYd 9NK9f66dObyFLagdBGB5HSBEu+cC7e8p9C7FImO6NUidHTw7QStxodTrOTBC60m95fGx DXFQ== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.100.244 with SMTP id fb20mr5500495veb.39.1401406032756; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Thu, 29 May 2014 16:27:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <21383.43664.36377.507080@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <201405292103.06299.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <21383.43664.36377.507080@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 19:27:12 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: PbFnQLV5KX6QmuHfOdi9yyzDbCA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Maximum number of EAPIs in tree (was: Call For Agenda Items - 10 Jun 2014) From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: ccce8286-7f16-41e1-9c67-2048b68a115f X-Archives-Hash: f0795ccefd507b4392003b704ac9c5c4 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2014, Andreas K Huettel wrote: > >> Let's decide that the maximum number of EAPIs allowed in the portage >> tree at any time must not exceed 7. > >> 7, since then EAPI=6 can still go ahead as planned. > >> Any new plans afterwards can only proceed if EAPI=1 is finally gone >> (achievable), and for more improvements the bar gets a bit higher >> afterwards. > > That's tree policy, but doesn't prevent PMS and package managers from > supporting more than that number of EAPIs. > > In fact, we could finalise the new EAPI, but devs would only be > allowed to commit such ebuilds to the tree when one of the old EAPIs > is gone. Nice way to increase peer pressure. :-) I like the idea of controlling the number of EAPIs in the tree. I don't like doing it this way. If the Council thinks there are too many EAPIs, then don't approve any more until it is fixed. Having everybody starting flamewars on the list about fixing their ebuilds or don't touch my ebuilds or whatever because projects are stepping on each other's toes seems like dereliction of duty on the part of the Council. What's the point of having an elected body to make decisions if they're just going to say, "here you go, we created a mess for you, now figure out how to sort it out and let us know if you have any agenda items for next month...?" I'm all for picking a guideline like 7, but in the end the same council that sets the limit can change the limit or ignore the limit. It is like having Congress set a budget limit - they can change the limit as quickly as they set it, and they can even do it in the same law that goes over the limit. The Council has already taken measures to start deprecating EAPIs, and I'd hope the next Council will continue this in a sensible fashion. However, we can't dictate what they'll do, and if there is a good reason for the number to be 8 then they can make it 8. Rich