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 6E078138350 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D17DEE092B; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 9F6F9E0929 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:51:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from a1i15 (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3B1134F052; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:51:20 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - council meeting 2020-03-08 References: <20200225195903.99dff9f8fd997e62dafdbc4a@gentoo.org> <057597b3b2b8e8ea2deccca7e3b6f700d2aff820.camel@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:51:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: <057597b3b2b8e8ea2deccca7e3b6f700d2aff820.camel@gentoo.org> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny=22's?= message of "Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:46:41 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.60 (gnu/linux) 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: d45a4e01-9de0-4f84-ab0f-c942dcd2b1ed X-Archives-Hash: c406f888462e8812a37b2fc7c244ada0 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2020, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > Not sure if this is practically able but technically I see an advantage > from having three distinct states: > 1. Deprecation -- tooling warns about them but there are no consequences > for adding new ebuilds. > 2. Ban I -- tooling errors out, if developers add new ebuilds > (as in real new ebuilds), we pursue it. Does this really occur at a scale that should bother us? The main blocker for removal of old EAPIs are unmaintained ebuilds, and for these any levels of more fine-grained bans won't help. > 3. Ban II -- no ebuilds left, CI fatal, immediate revert. Ulrich --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFDBAEBCAAtFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAl5dD1EPHHVsbUBnZW50 b28ub3JnAAoJEFGIM1CIQV4uSKsIAL93JUIbRvuCLZ2i19tBFUpflsV059bLboey AwPvtFdaWV7PdnrLydZaQcZ5ILMIZD2dVztGAea6IRTLS5D610v2W9kvUcyr+SPH ytISJ2/EgH1k8w/LQILybwqcDj/2HMafCZqbT6bdce/I8alWbOAUV5e3rbyT77HU VFy+q9e09d4K6URW+14GTqawIPC5xcucUO9mHe3ZqJtlw4n6hrEZkYloPu4yCfd/ F2EQh5LfJgll9patY5Vgzy/rNMEkoYaQDd8IJIRREMvi/ziAtcUsjSv2IcwYeRsM lTepqdPpHv3TQnbKsRJunFSYV+W3cH9oIdpTXxJERmPfyoRoegw= =eC+1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--