Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: On eclass APIs
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 05:19:28
Message-Id: 20111228232751.7497a2ab@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] On eclass APIs by Fabian Groffen
On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:35:36 +0100
Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:

> Is this necessary for just one function, or is this only beneficial > after a huge revamp of some eclass? Is it acceptable to take the > breakage outside Gentoo, given the extra work imposed by creating > revisions and keeping track?
If there has been some major instance of eclass API breakage wrecking the tree lately then I missed it (lately being defined as "since 2007 when debug.eclass was purposely poisoned by QA"). So this versioning scheme is IMO largely over-engineering a solution to a non-existent problem. I'd like to say "use common sense" when announcing modifications to public APIs, but we've proven time and again incapable of doing anything without a painstakingly written procedure that we can all ignore or find loopholes in. So 30 days sounds like a good minimum for an email to g-d-announce after all in-tree uses are converted, unless your eclass has an "s", "y", or "e" in the name in which case you roll a die and multiply by 30 (ie. current standard practice). -- fonts, gcc-porting, it makes no sense how it makes no sense toolchain, wxwidgets but i'll take it free anytime @ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature