1 |
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 07:47:24PM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> >> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop |
6 |
> >> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The |
7 |
> >> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical |
8 |
> >> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. |
9 |
> >> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses |
10 |
> >> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but |
11 |
> >> instead to promote positive development. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005): |
15 |
> |
16 |
> You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Eclass removal addition: |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses: |
21 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Under discussion: |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of |
26 |
> an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: "The council's purpose is to |
27 |
> help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people |
28 |
> to move forward on one unified path." |
29 |
|
30 |
From my stance, I firmly believe the council doesn't really need to be |
31 |
involved here. This is QA's domain- specifically to decide tree |
32 |
policy. |
33 |
|
34 |
The only question here is essentially "at what point do we stop |
35 |
caring about older portage versions". portage 2.1.4.4 went stable |
36 |
(carrying that support) 06/01/08. Frankly I'd argue the council's |
37 |
original decision while bound to eclasses, should've been bound to the |
38 |
2.1.4.4 release- specifically "you can't remove eclasses/functionality |
39 |
until 2 years after 2.1.4.4". |
40 |
|
41 |
So... I firmly view this as QA's domain (they set the rules for most |
42 |
other tree policies). Leave it to them to decide. I realize from |
43 |
the standpoint of following the rules, this will require the council |
44 |
to state "yeah, we're backing out of this, it's now QA's domain", but |
45 |
this is my view on what should be done. |
46 |
|
47 |
~harring |