| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:02 +0100 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> Some minimum time/versions (say six months) before a PM drops support for |
| 4 |
> it, on PM upgrades it starts warning about the coming drop of EAPI-X |
| 5 |
> support, giving the user a reasonable deadline (the same six months) to |
| 6 |
> upgrade or uninstall said packages as PM versions after that date will be |
| 7 |
> dropping support. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I actually don't have a problem with this. If there were a |
| 10 |
coordinated effort to completely deprecate an EAPI and the PM teams |
| 11 |
vouched that it would make their life easier, I'd be happy to be a |
| 12 |
part of a concerted effort to bump everything to where it needs to be. |
| 13 |
If we made the transition long then it would be mostly transparent to |
| 14 |
users. If they had some odd package still installed with an old EAPI |
| 15 |
they could always re-install it to clean up the installed package |
| 16 |
database. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
My main concern is doing bumps all the time just for their own sake. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Rich |
Archives