| 1 |
On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs |
| 4 |
>> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug |
| 5 |
>> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is |
| 6 |
>> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's |
| 11 |
> noise and it's annoying. EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to |
| 12 |
> move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but |
| 13 |
> arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or |
| 14 |
> legwork done if not) isn't helpful. Kind of equivalent to zero-day |
| 15 |
> bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Except this is what we have now, and isn't a compromise at all. |
Archives