On 1.9.2011 14.31, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:02:11 +0300
> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
> 
>> On 1.9.2011 13.51, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:44:47 +0300
>>> Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1.9.2011 12.03, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> A quick idea. Right now eclasses sometimes do API changes and
>>>>> start yelling at users merging ebuilds using outdates APIs. This
>>>>> often means users start filling bugs about outdated ebuilds
>>>>> requiring maintainers either to ignore that or start updating old
>>>>> ebuilds retroactively.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe we should add some kind of devqawarn() function to
>>>>> eutils.eclass, which would trigger special QA warnings only when
>>>>> ebuild is merged by a developer? This could be triggered e.g. by
>>>>> some kind of voluntary make.conf setting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's wrong with eqawarn that's already provided by eutils?
>>>
>>> The first paragraph?
>>>
>>
>> Have Portage defaults so that users only see if them if they read the
>> merge logs and then developer profiles can set the settings to log
>> them?
> 
> 1) that's changing existing behavior,
> 2) what with non-portage users?
> 

1) eqawarn == devqawarn. I don't see a reason to come up with a new
function just to avoid changing Portage configuration.

2) How messages from each e* function is shown is left to the package
manager to decide.

One thing to note is that we should get eqawarn into the next EAPI.

Regards,
Petteri