| 1 |
El vie, 19-10-2012 a las 14:51 -0300, Alexis Ballier escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:21:52 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> [...] |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > What I am trying to say is that, if we agree latest eapi is |
| 8 |
> > technically better, we need to try to get it used when possible (I |
| 9 |
> > mean, when, for example, eclasses are ported) for a "QA" reasoning. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> i think we all agree that there are improvements in newer eapis. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> what about filling bugs, preferably with patches, when such |
| 14 |
> improvements are really needed ? like what was done for nuking |
| 15 |
> built_with_use. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> arguing to death if 'should use latest eapi' should become 'must use |
| 18 |
> latest eapi' will never get things done :) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Because it will add even more work, I mean: |
| 23 |
- I catch a package using and old eapi and, then, still not passing |
| 24 |
--disable-silent-rules option. => First problem, I need to notice that |
| 25 |
package, there are packages I simply won't notice because I don't merge |
| 26 |
them ever or, simply, I don't notice that option is not being used. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
- I need to report a bug per each package using old eapi => I would need |
| 29 |
to report a ton of bugs for bumping eapi that, probably, I could have |
| 30 |
directly bumped myself if I would be allowed to (I already do it in my |
| 31 |
maintained packages and maintainer-needed ones, but not for others as |
| 32 |
maybe their maintainers dislike...) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
- Maintainer need to check that bug and commit the change or reject the |
| 35 |
bump (in that case we would be blocked if maintainer doesn't bump it for |
| 36 |
some strange reason). There are also some devs really slow to reply. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
- This effort needs to be done again and again in the future with newer |
| 39 |
eapis, while could be "automatically" done on next bump by maintainer. |
Archives