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