Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Changes to EAPI ban workflow

[Aaron Bauman]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:59:06PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 09:33 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Marek Szuba wrote:
> > > On 2021-07-11 21:54, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > > My gut feeling is that having this distinction is useful.  However, it
> > > > has been pointed out that we've probably never really had to use it
> > > > (i.e. use the "banned" argument to stop someone from using old EAPI)
> > > > and that the switch from "deprecated" to "banned" state did not really
> > > > affect porting away from old EAPI.
> > >
> > > For the benefit of those not interested in sifting through the logs of
> > > Council meetings, here is a quick reiteration of my take on this:
> > >
> > > 1. Maybe it's my professional bend speaking but it feels to me like we
> > > really should establish a clear, GLEP-documented EAPI life cycle with
> > > well-defined meaning of individual stages. I will work on preparing a
> > > suitable proposal;
> > >
> > > 2. Until the above has introduced a (hopefully) better system, I am all for
> > > removing step 2 because it makes the procedure less bureaucratic.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2021-07-12 02:11, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just officially ban it, send out a message, and use the best judgement
> > > > when enforcing it (should it even need to be enforced).
> > >
> > > And the point of establishing a policy doomed from start to be enforced
> > > weakly or not at all is? Other than making the Council look like we care
> > > more about theatrics than actual governance, that is.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Marecki
> > >
> >
> > It is not theatrics. It is a policy that was effective in the past and
> > is used in lieu of a technical measure. Albeit, it is unlikely to be
> > enforced because most people abide by the deprecation warnings.
> >
>
> That's the whole point.  Do we need a two-step deprecation/ban if 'most'
> people abide by deprecation warnings?
>
> I'm wondering if the two-step deprecation/ban isn't a symptom of a wider
> problem.  After all, we want people to stop using old EAPIs after
> they're deprecated, not after they're explicitly forbidden to use them.
>
> Maybe the whole point is that we should stop trying to draw explicit
> lines everywhere and instead assume -- per common sense -- that
> deprecating is enough for people to eventually stop using them.
>

As said, in lieu of that we have a fail safe.