On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@...> wrote:
[...]
> That's not how it works. We've seen plenty of times in the past
> that forcing QA by making users' systems break (which is how far these
> things get before they're fixed) just leads to lots of annoyed users.
> EAPI, plus slowly moving things towards new EAPIs on version bumps once
> newer EAPIs are widely supported, is the clean way of doing this.

This might be the clean way to do it, but the unfortunate truth is
that new EAPIs seem to be becoming "standard" pretty darn slowly, and
counting on one to implement a feature that is definitely very useful
for QA seems to be miring ourselves in unnecessary bureaucracy.

Also, this does not have to cause breakage if done incrementally, so
the net loss is nil, and the net gain is getting a useful feature in a
relatively short, deterministic period of time rather than otherwise.

-- 
Arun Raghavan
(http://nemesis.accosted.net)
v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056
e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list