| 1 |
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:38:51 -0500 |
| 2 |
Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Should the next EAPI (as proposed) be a major "release" in terms of |
| 4 |
> naming? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
We don't use major.minor numbers for EAPI or have a concept like that. |
| 7 |
It's too much mess. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> And should it really be adding features? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Well... So far as I can see, the main driving force behind all of this |
| 12 |
is the immediate need for [use(+)] deps (since developers don't want to |
| 13 |
have to mess around with complex || statements), and [use(+)] is most |
| 14 |
definitely a new feature. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> With that said, can't bug fixes be implemented without an EAPI bump? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
If we screw up the specification and catch it early enough on, then |
| 19 |
yes. But [use(+)] really isn't a bug fix... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives