Re: [gentoo-dev] EAPI usage

[Brian Harring]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:03:55PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote:
> >>
> >> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs
> >> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug
> >> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is
> >> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump.
> >
> > If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure.
> >
> > If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's
> > noise and it's annoying.  EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to
> > move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but
> > arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or
> > legwork done if not) isn't helpful.  Kind of equivalent to zero-day
> > bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness.
>
> Except this is what we have now,

Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane.

> and isn't a compromise at all.

I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required 
outcome of this.  Given the choice between something productive, and 
something not productive, you don't choose the quasi-productive 
solution.

Bluntly, chasing EAPI versions w/out gain is a waste of time; others 
may think "but it should be EAPI4- the latest!"- and they'd be wrong.  
You bump when there is a reason to do so, or when from a maintenance 
standoint you've got time (now) to do so and can push it forward- 
getting ahead of future work.  Keep in mind the rule "every change 
carries a risk"- while the risk is generally stupidly low, it's 
something I don't think you're being cognizant of in this notion of 
trying to get everything at EAPI whatever.

Filing a bunch of "please bump this to EAPI-whatever" is just annoying 
nagging, it doesn't accomplish anything nor is the ticket particularly 
useful on it's own.  A "Please bump to EAPI4 due to issue xyz" is 
useful- there is a core reason beyond "hey, EAPI4 is the latest AND 
EVERYTHING MUST BE THE LATEST GREATEST!!!" :)

Same angle for EAPI5 and user patching... yes, devs will have a reason 
to move it forward, but user patching is going to be used by a *small* 
fraction of our userbase.  Meaning if you want it, you're likely going 
to need to do the legwork bumping things forward, else you're on the 
devs time/prioritizations.

Not saying it's perfect, but the comments above are realistic rather 
than trying to compromise against the realities of the situation. ;)
~harring