| 1 |
On 09/02/2012 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so |
| 4 |
>> complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> <rant>Ok, it REALLY annoys me when people pull out this kind of a line |
| 7 |
> in an argument... If it isn't all that complicated or involved and it |
| 8 |
> just makes so much sense, then why do we bother to waste time asking |
| 9 |
> for it to be made policy, since obviously everybody will just do it |
| 10 |
> anyway... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Believe it or not, people who take up an opposing side in a debate |
| 13 |
> don't ALWAYS do it because they're simply dumber than you. That is, |
| 14 |
> unless they're arguing with me... :) </rant> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think everyone would be happier if all ebuilds in the tree were EAPI4. |
| 19 |
On the other hand, Rich is right that making this a policy will have the |
| 20 |
opposite of the intended effect: developers just won't fix bugs in |
| 21 |
EAPI<4 ebuilds when they don't have time to do the EAPI bump (one could |
| 22 |
easily spend a few hours on this). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs |
| 25 |
are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug |
| 26 |
and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is |
| 27 |
under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. |
Archives