1 |
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 10:36:13AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
2 |
> On 09/02/2012 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> >> What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so |
5 |
> >> complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance... |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > <rant>Ok, it REALLY annoys me when people pull out this kind of a line |
8 |
> > in an argument... If it isn't all that complicated or involved and it |
9 |
> > just makes so much sense, then why do we bother to waste time asking |
10 |
> > for it to be made policy, since obviously everybody will just do it |
11 |
> > anyway... |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Believe it or not, people who take up an opposing side in a debate |
14 |
> > don't ALWAYS do it because they're simply dumber than you. That is, |
15 |
> > unless they're arguing with me... :) </rant> |
16 |
> > |
17 |
> |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I think everyone would be happier if all ebuilds in the tree were EAPI4. |
20 |
> On the other hand, Rich is right that making this a policy will have the |
21 |
> opposite of the intended effect: developers just won't fix bugs in |
22 |
> EAPI<4 ebuilds when they don't have time to do the EAPI bump (one could |
23 |
> easily spend a few hours on this). |
24 |
> |
25 |
> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs |
26 |
> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug |
27 |
> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is |
28 |
> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. |
29 |
|
30 |
If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure. |
31 |
|
32 |
If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's |
33 |
noise and it's annoying. EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to |
34 |
move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but |
35 |
arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or |
36 |
legwork done if not) isn't helpful. Kind of equivalent to zero-day |
37 |
bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness. |
38 |
|
39 |
~harring |