| 1 |
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 10:54:45PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, everyone. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> The Council has eventually decided that the proposed agenda item |
| 5 |
> changing the EAPI workflow has not received sufficient public |
| 6 |
> discussion, so I'd like to restart it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 3. When all ebuilds are removed, the EAPI is added to eapis-banned |
| 10 |
> and the tools now explicitly forbid adding ebuilds with that EAPI. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> The change proposed in [1] eliminates step 2. The EAPI remains |
| 14 |
> in 'deprecated' policy-state until all ebuilds using it are removed. |
| 15 |
> There is no distinction between 'weak' deprecation ("please don't use |
| 16 |
> it") and 'strong' ban ("you mustn't use it unless you have a very good |
| 17 |
> reason to"). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
There seems to be a lot of time spent on whether to take 1 minute |
| 21 |
to officialy ban an EAPI in a meeting. Plots are cool, but nothing |
| 22 |
statistically significant is going to show given the small issues we had |
| 23 |
in the past. The formality is simply to keep those small issues from |
| 24 |
being a headache to other devs. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Just officially ban it, send out a message, and use the best judgement |
| 27 |
when enforcing it (should it even need to be enforced). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-Aaron |
Archives