| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> |
| 4 |
>>> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs |
| 5 |
>>> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug |
| 6 |
>>> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is |
| 7 |
>>> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's |
| 12 |
>> noise and it's annoying. EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to |
| 13 |
>> move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but |
| 14 |
>> arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or |
| 15 |
>> legwork done if not) isn't helpful. Kind of equivalent to zero-day |
| 16 |
>> bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Except this is what we have now, and isn't a compromise at all. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What use is a bug report requesting an EAPI bump for no reason? There |
| 22 |
is no sense in "compromising" and creating such a policy if nobody |
| 23 |
actually benefits from it. |
Archives