| 1 |
On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop |
| 5 |
>> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The |
| 6 |
>> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical |
| 7 |
>> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. |
| 8 |
>> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses |
| 9 |
>> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but |
| 10 |
>> instead to promote positive development. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005): |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Eclass removal addition: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses: |
| 20 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Under discussion: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of |
| 25 |
an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: "The council's purpose is to |
| 26 |
help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people |
| 27 |
to move forward on one unified path." |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to |
| 31 |
> what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion, |
| 32 |
> the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate |
| 33 |
> discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there |
| 34 |
> was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
There's already an approved process for eclass removal (see link above). |
| 38 |
If we allow removal of functions I think there should a similar set of |
| 39 |
rules as for eclass and package removal. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Regards, |
| 42 |
Petteri |
Archives