| 1 |
> Bottom line is that what a developer MUST do is a matter of what |
| 2 |
> people will bother to complain to Devrel about, and what Devrel will |
| 3 |
> bother to enforce. For the most part this boils down to common sense. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Err... if that's the part you worry about, I'm personally completely happy if |
| 6 |
we just all agree that it's common sense to stick to the newest council- |
| 7 |
approved development with fullest feature set. no need to put it in writing |
| 8 |
any more than as a "strong recommendation". :) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> And since EAPIs |
| 11 |
> aren't actually ordered, is the latest one whichever is actually last |
| 12 |
> approved, or the one which is "most functional?" Suppose EAPI xml |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
To be honest I personally consider that ("eapis are not ordered") an |
| 15 |
abomination, and my personal wish would be to keep them large-scale ordered |
| 16 |
with (among one major version) unordered sub-versions ("4-xxx") if needed. or |
| 17 |
at least keep all PMS-approved eapis ordered. "Experimental eapis for use in |
| 18 |
third party software" should not require any mentioning in pms anyway. :] |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
However, that is a different discussion. Someday I'll start a separate |
| 21 |
flamewar^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmailing list thread about it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 27 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 28 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives