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 86327138350 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:57:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 37CBEE0895; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:57:52 +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 73462E088F for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:57:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (c142-245.icpnet.pl [85.221.142.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF86434F294; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:57:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - council meeting 2020-03-08 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 12:57:44 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20200225195903.99dff9f8fd997e62dafdbc4a@gentoo.org> References: <20200225195903.99dff9f8fd997e62dafdbc4a@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-bEWukMXFywzQw5QCG+oO" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.5 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 X-Archives-Salt: 5b084b77-6c65-49d9-bfc1-78c0d426f459 X-Archives-Hash: f8aff1e7398a3c55babee153bb0d1e82 --=-bEWukMXFywzQw5QCG+oO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 19:59 -0800, Georgy Yakovlev wrote: > Hello, >=20 > on 2020-03-08, the Gentoo council will meet at > 19:00 UTC in the #gentoo-council channel on freenode. >=20 > Please reply to this message with any items you would like us to discuss > 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? 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). 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. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --=-bEWukMXFywzQw5QCG+oO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAABCgB9FiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAl5c9LlfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEM3 NkE4NDUwOTQwOThEMjhDQzhCMjZDNTYzOUFEQUUyMzI5RTI0MEUACgkQY5ra4jKe JA7Z8gf/ekLU8fDpywi7whb85szU55nJmuQp1fvRygzxio7ErIJvmPZE+stFV5Pq GG1n8mcVOUuGAxH/xAadZQKVmBqNP4hChIkKDbVTIDsiblPfoiR84lXGTHjVE017 K2PLOVTygFDJS4wk8WgfuR7l1ErwAdXKVNDVm4ApNvC0UaG1+Mi2ZewMTp4Y+QVp XoAqRdR+ioolpHlQGwNnfcoqj3RmN75a5PPtozGyMDUNY+UmYutO25MsQm6J5Bup OHRbF06x3HYWeLL/U6N+8ML4E87sJTMI2jrIq0di4lIZpIKlkjaWApZDQbNnKWI4 dfNSIFZqbVZ8qnGQdGzygma8eJTMBQ== =EVBx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-bEWukMXFywzQw5QCG+oO--