Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: backward-incompatible changes in eclasses

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 14:00 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 07:36:13PM +0100, David Seifert wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-03-23 at 13:23 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > it has been brought to my attention that there have been several
> > > backward-incompatible changes made to the python eclasses lately.
> > >
> > > It is true that everything in ::gentoo has been fixed along with the
> > > changes to the eclasses; however, when a change like this goes into a
> > > widely used eclass it breaks overlays with little to no notice;
> > > especially since we do not require developers to be subscribed to this
> > > mailing list.
> > >
> > > I do agree that overlay authors are on their own to fix things, but we need to
> > > find a way to notify them when a breaking change is going into a widely
> > > used eclass and give them time to adjust their ebuilds.
> > >
> > > If the old way of doing things cannot be supported
> > > along side the new way the correct path forward is a new version of the
> > > eclass then a lastrites on the old version. That would give overlay
> > > authors time to switch to the new eclass.
> > >
> > > If the old and new way can be supported in the same code base, a
> > > reasonable way forward is to  allow both ways to exist while ::gentoo is
> > > migrated to the new code path then do the equivalent of a lastrites for
> > > the old code path so overlay authors can adjust their ebuilds.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > William
> > >
> >
> > All of this was announced with a 3 month timeout, using the right channels. Have
> > you checked all python-related eclasses changes submitted to the ML? In this
> > case, eqawarn would not have been possible, because the change involved
> > dereferencing a variable.
>
> This is the change that broke us today.
>
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/aa45f4f86f9b865eb0fe7344d83a7258
>
> Where is the three month timeout for it?
>

This is *not* a breaking API change.  No public API changes, only
a warning message is added.  Private API functions aren't removed
either.

Don't you think it would be more appropriate to do some research or
simply *ask* before spreading FUD?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny