| 1 |
On 02/10/2014 09:35 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> one and possibly needed features. You will connect the question of |
| 3 |
>> >"are we ready to deprecate X" with the question "we need to introduce |
| 4 |
>> >Y for needed features a, b and c." |
| 5 |
> It is hard to grasp for me for when features from a newer EAPI would |
| 6 |
> delay the migration, do you have an example? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
That's not what i mean. It is possible that we may want the newer EAPI |
| 10 |
for the features it brings but be as yet unwilling to deprecated the |
| 11 |
older EAPI for stability reasons. Even if the newer EAPI is a proper |
| 12 |
superset of the older, hidden implementation changes have not been |
| 13 |
tested well and we might want to be more caution about deprecating our |
| 14 |
older yet very stable EAPI. EAPI=4 is very stable right now. I have |
| 15 |
more confidence in it that 5 simply because of the coverage and testing |
| 16 |
its gotten. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 20 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 21 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 22 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 23 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives