| 1 |
On 09/05/2012 12:15 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
>>>> |
| 5 |
>>>> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs |
| 6 |
>>>> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug |
| 7 |
>>>> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is |
| 8 |
>>>> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's |
| 13 |
>>> noise and it's annoying. EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to |
| 14 |
>>> move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but |
| 15 |
>>> arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or |
| 16 |
>>> legwork done if not) isn't helpful. Kind of equivalent to zero-day |
| 17 |
>>> bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Except this is what we have now, and isn't a compromise at all. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> What use is a bug report requesting an EAPI bump for no reason? There |
| 23 |
> is no sense in "compromising" and creating such a policy if nobody |
| 24 |
> actually benefits from it. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
If there's really no reason, why would anyone bother to file a bug for |
| 28 |
it? It's better for developers than the must-bump policy, and better for |
| 29 |
users than what we have now. |
Archives