Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Changes to EAPI ban workflow

[Michał Górny]

On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 09:33 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Marek Szuba wrote:
> > On 2021-07-11 21:54, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > My gut feeling is that having this distinction is useful.  However, it
> > > has been pointed out that we've probably never really had to use it
> > > (i.e. use the "banned" argument to stop someone from using old EAPI)
> > > and that the switch from "deprecated" to "banned" state did not really
> > > affect porting away from old EAPI.
> >
> > For the benefit of those not interested in sifting through the logs of
> > Council meetings, here is a quick reiteration of my take on this:
> >
> > 1. Maybe it's my professional bend speaking but it feels to me like we
> > really should establish a clear, GLEP-documented EAPI life cycle with
> > well-defined meaning of individual stages. I will work on preparing a
> > suitable proposal;
> >
> > 2. Until the above has introduced a (hopefully) better system, I am all for
> > removing step 2 because it makes the procedure less bureaucratic.
> >
> >
> > On 2021-07-12 02:11, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> >
> > > Just officially ban it, send out a message, and use the best judgement
> > > when enforcing it (should it even need to be enforced).
> >
> > And the point of establishing a policy doomed from start to be enforced
> > weakly or not at all is? Other than making the Council look like we care
> > more about theatrics than actual governance, that is.
> >
> > --
> > Marecki
> >
>
> It is not theatrics. It is a policy that was effective in the past and
> is used in lieu of a technical measure. Albeit, it is unlikely to be
> enforced because most people abide by the deprecation warnings.
>

That's the whole point.  Do we need a two-step deprecation/ban if 'most'
people abide by deprecation warnings?

I'm wondering if the two-step deprecation/ban isn't a symptom of a wider
problem.  After all, we want people to stop using old EAPIs after
they're deprecated, not after they're explicitly forbidden to use them.

Maybe the whole point is that we should stop trying to draw explicit
lines everywhere and instead assume -- per common sense -- that
deprecating is enough for people to eventually stop using them.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny