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 3A602138350 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C7D7E094A; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:39:11 +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 2D164E0949 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:39:11 +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 BD31934F30C; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 12:39:09 +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> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 13:38:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny=22's?= message of "Mon, 02 Mar 2020 12:57:44 +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: 7fc27b9e-5630-49ae-b839-8eccd1a10e85 X-Archives-Hash: 20ed93fd5600da098e441ac2229c8732 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2020, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > 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. EAPIs are being banned after a deprecation period, which typically is two years. So I guess one can expect packages that run into the ban not to be very actively maintained. Looking at the plots [1] (especially the third plot from the top), I don't see any change in slope for EAPI 0 in 2016-01 or for EAPI 4 in 2018-04. So arguably, the "banned" state doesn't give any additional incentive to update an ebuild, as compared to the "deprecated" state. After your proposed change, the difference between the two states would be even more blurred. Maybe we should revisit the concept, and ban EAPIs only when their last ebuild has left the tree, i.e., when the EAPI is added to eapis-banned in layout.conf? Ulrich [1] https://www.akhuettel.de/~huettel/plots/eapi.php --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFDBAEBCAAtFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAl5c/l4PHHVsbUBnZW50 b28ub3JnAAoJEFGIM1CIQV4uYlUH/1x1H0XoGWSdvTrCief/50BIgWOHJulsaWRJ UQJLyg0hfPynyAI3ypJ7k+8Dnh87LbTYY1u35H/XtQNW3vIRqWOUMCbsk35SLjfK GhkpcWsvRwlN+54fE7uF/yeIzfBob+poscD3ZXRPN3ecmPXwDGszzzQ/8FEE3Kng pD17c0j3WCcN8B4WJYe1updqnNGZXtA1cNoWuQsPwTA2dIhSW/88h8toEjVzmURi FRwg5CfqE0+m/TOy962sJPe+bVkagb+UlJYgjB9kxh58CcFMh+DY0KBIdZgtM9Eu 6Svfj/fHB/WTT/0e1MvtQPaemqpJ2IET087+JQb5PIuA+l7UE/s= =toum -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--