| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
[...] |
| 4 |
> That's not how it works. We've seen plenty of times in the past |
| 5 |
> that forcing QA by making users' systems break (which is how far these |
| 6 |
> things get before they're fixed) just leads to lots of annoyed users. |
| 7 |
> EAPI, plus slowly moving things towards new EAPIs on version bumps once |
| 8 |
> newer EAPIs are widely supported, is the clean way of doing this. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
This might be the clean way to do it, but the unfortunate truth is |
| 11 |
that new EAPIs seem to be becoming "standard" pretty darn slowly, and |
| 12 |
counting on one to implement a feature that is definitely very useful |
| 13 |
for QA seems to be miring ourselves in unnecessary bureaucracy. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Also, this does not have to cause breakage if done incrementally, so |
| 16 |
the net loss is nil, and the net gain is getting a useful feature in a |
| 17 |
relatively short, deterministic period of time rather than otherwise. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Arun Raghavan |
| 21 |
(http://nemesis.accosted.net) |
| 22 |
v2sw5Chw4+5ln4pr6$OFck2ma4+9u8w3+1!m?l7+9GSCKi056 |
| 23 |
e6+9i4b8/9HTAen4+5g4/8APa2Xs8r1/2p5-8 hackerkey.com |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives