1 |
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel |
6 |
>>> > <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
>>> >> |
8 |
>>> >> Is it worth the effort? Yes, see below. |
9 |
>>> >> Is it a high priority task? No. |
10 |
>>> >> |
11 |
>>> > |
12 |
>>> > It sounds like all that has been done is to log a tracker and create |
13 |
>>> > some bugs. That is hardly a major burden on anybody. If it nudges |
14 |
>>> > people to bump the EAPI when they're doing other work so much the |
15 |
>>> > better, but there doesn't seem to be a drop-dead date yet. |
16 |
>>> > |
17 |
>>> > If devs don't want to think about EAPI cleanup they don't have to right |
18 |
>>> > now. |
19 |
>>> |
20 |
>>> No, not true. Look at the blocking bugs. We're asking arch teams to |
21 |
>>> retest and restabilize ebuilds whose only difference is the EAPI bump. |
22 |
>>> |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> Ultimate the arch teams are supposed to test the ebuild (that it works), so |
25 |
>> when we change the EAPI of the ebuild re-testing is required. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Of course, but that's not the point... |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Strictly speaking nobody is forcing the arch teams to test any of |
31 |
these bumps either. They are as free to choose to work on those bugs |
32 |
as anybody else. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
Rich |