| 1 |
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 19:59:22 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> How do you plan to test a thousand packages against the new version |
| 5 |
> of python, and then revision/stabilize all of the broken ones |
| 6 |
> immediately? Or is the plan to just break everyone's systems, and ask |
| 7 |
> them to report bugs for the things that stopped working? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If packages have tests, running those is one way. If they do not, and |
| 10 |
its say a library. Long as other packages that use the library |
| 11 |
build/run against it then it should be ok. It would get trickier for |
| 12 |
things lacking tests. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Breaking already occurs now but in the form of breaking updates and |
| 15 |
causing users to fiddle with the targets. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I am NOT talking about stabilization at all. Simple reducing the burden |
| 18 |
of adding targets to ebuild, and users having to fiddle with targets as |
| 19 |
they come and go. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I think what you will actually get as a result is that nobody will |
| 22 |
> ever add a new version of python to the tree, because you've just |
| 23 |
> made it a huge ordeal to do so. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This is actually the opposite. To add a new version as is right now. |
| 26 |
You have to edit every Python or Ruby ebuild. Otherwise they cannot use |
| 27 |
that new version. There is tremendous work as is now. Not to mention a |
| 28 |
really bad end user experience. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
This would considerable reduce the workload. Not to mention making life |
| 31 |
better for end users. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives