| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tiziano Müller <dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Montag, den 23.02.2009, 22:25 +1300 schrieb Alistair Bush: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 5 |
>> >> What is proposed in glep-55 seems to aim to solve both issues at the |
| 6 |
>> >> same time (it isn't stated) by switching file extension every time the |
| 7 |
>> >> eapi is changed. This is slightly against the principle of the least |
| 8 |
>> >> surprise and apparently is disliked by enough people to lead the |
| 9 |
>> >> situation to be discussed in the council. |
| 10 |
>> >> |
| 11 |
>> > |
| 12 |
>> > Instead of switching file extension every time the eapi is changed you |
| 13 |
>> > could also increment it only when a new EAPI breaks sourcing the ebuild |
| 14 |
>> > compared to the requirements of the prior EAPI. |
| 15 |
>> > (This way you'd in fact split EAPI into a major- and a minor-version.) |
| 16 |
>> > |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Doesn't that just add extra complexity for no gain. |
| 19 |
> Yes, sure. I was just looking for a solution for the "we have countless .eapi-X after 10 years" problem. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
No one wants to be working with ebuild-29 or something like that in a |
| 22 |
few years and trying to figure out which feature came in which EAPI. |
| 23 |
Instead of bumping EAPI for each little change, save them up and bump |
| 24 |
no more than once a year or less, each bump bringing in some major new |
| 25 |
feature. With a little common sense and planning, we could make this a |
| 26 |
non-issue and give ebuild authors and PM devs alike a little time to |
| 27 |
get used to each change. |
Archives