Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Brian Harring <ferringb@...>
Subject: Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:33:22 -0700
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 07:47:24PM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> 
> > 
> >> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop
> >> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The
> >> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical
> >> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path.
> >> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses
> >> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but
> >> instead to promote positive development.
> > 
> 
> Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005):
> 
> You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass.
> 
> Eclass removal addition:
> 
> Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt
> 
> Under discussion:
> 
> Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of
> an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: "The council's purpose is to
> help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people
> to move forward on one unified path."

From my stance, I firmly believe the council doesn't really need to be 
involved here.  This is QA's domain- specifically to decide tree 
policy.

The only question here is essentially "at what point do we stop 
caring about older portage versions".  portage 2.1.4.4 went stable 
(carrying that support) 06/01/08.  Frankly I'd argue the council's 
original decision while bound to eclasses, should've been bound to the 
2.1.4.4 release- specifically "you can't remove eclasses/functionality 
until 2 years after 2.1.4.4".

So... I firmly view this as QA's domain (they set the rules for most 
other tree policies).  Leave it to them to decide.  I realize from 
the standpoint of following the rules, this will require the council 
to state "yeah, we're backing out of this, it's now QA's domain", but 
this is my view on what should be done.

~harring
Attachment:
pgpT3kdbXojxi.pgp (PGP signature)
References:
RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Matti Bickel
Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Petteri Räty
Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Brian Harring
Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Ryan Hill
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Doug Goldstein
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Petteri Räty
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Doug Goldstein
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
-- Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
Next by thread:
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others
Previous by date:
Re: QA warnings from eclasses
Next by date:
Re: Re: RFC: remove php4 from depend.php and others


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.