Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Bracht Laumann Jespersen <t@×××××××.xyz>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 83: EAPI deprecation
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 20:09:01
Message-Id: YubhVM/2OE7/RUQg@sofaking
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 83: EAPI deprecation by Ulrich Mueller
1 Minor language things, on the whole an easy document to read!
2
3 > Motivation
4 > ==========
5 >
6 > So far, old EAPIs were deprecated by the Gentoo Council in an ad-hoc
7 > manner. No fixed criteria were used, resulting in very different
8 > deprecation times after approval of newer EAPIs. Standardized
9 > criteria for deprecation and banning will make the life cycle of EAPIs
10 > more predictable.
11
12 "very different" could maybe be specified further. Something like
13 "inconsistent"/"unreliable"/"unpredictable" is more precise?
14
15 >
16 > The Gentoo Council will ban a deprecated EAPI when
17 >
18 > * 24 months have passed since its deprecation, and
19 > * it is used by less than 5 % of ebuilds in the Gentoo repository.
20
21 Should be "fewer than 5 %".
22
23 >
24 > A delay of 24 months between deprecation and ban will give ebuild
25 > authors enough time to update. This is especially relevant for
26 > overlays and downstream distributions. Since a banned EAPI is
27 > sufficient reason for updating an ebuild, an additional threshold of
28 > 5 % is required, in order to keep the number of such updates (and bug
29 > reports requesting them) manageable.
30
31 Two things:
32
33 "Since" has a temporal meaning, but is often used to mean "although". Maybe
34 "although" is a better word here?
35
36 I would drop the ", in order" and make it simply "[…] an additional threshold
37 of 5% is required to keep the number […]"
38
39 -- Thomas

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 83: EAPI deprecation Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>