Archives
Archives
| From: | "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-project@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08 | ||
| Date: | Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:08:29 | ||
| Message-Id: | 4EB05FAC.7030101@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-11-08 by Ulrich Mueller |
||
| 1 | On 31.10.2011 12:27, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 | >>>>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 | > |
| 4 | >> Let's vote on if you are allowed to remove functions from eclasses (or |
| 5 | >> break the API in general): |
| 6 | > |
| 7 | >> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f797a983b0d11677a1f781e48ab4e97d.xml |
| 8 | > |
| 9 | >> Last time this came up a decision wasn't reached: |
| 10 | >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100726-summary.txt |
| 11 | > |
| 12 | >> The decision should then be documented here: |
| 13 | >> http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html |
| 14 | > |
| 15 | > Why do we need a decision here? Isn't it simply a special case of the |
| 16 | > "adding and updating eclasses" policy? |
| 17 | > |
| 18 | |
| 19 | Because when I joined I was taught to never the API of an eclass. Now |
| 20 | looking at gentoo-dev people want to be doing something else. From the |
| 21 | log provided you can see that the council has explicitly ruled nothing |
| 22 | on the issue yet. I think it would be better if we had something clear |
| 23 | in devmanual. |
| 24 | |
| 25 | Regards, |
| 26 | Petteri |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |