On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote:
> Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 22:25 +1300 schrieb Alistair Bush:
>>
>> Tiziano Müller wrote:
>> >> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the
>> >> same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the
>> >> eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least
>> >> surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the
>> >> situation to be discussed in the council.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you
>> > could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild
>> > compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI.
>> > (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.)
>> >
>>
>> Doesn't that just add extra complexity for no gain.
> Yes, sure. I was just looking for a solution for the "we have countless .eapi-X after 10 years" problem.

No one wants to be working with ebuild-29 or something like that in a
few years and trying to figure out which feature came in which EAPI.
Instead of bumping EAPI for each little change, save them up and bump
no more than once a year or less, each bump bringing in some major new
feature. With a little common sense and planning, we could make this a
non-issue and give ebuild authors and PM devs alike a little time to
get used to each change.