Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - council meeting 2020-03-08
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:11:53
Message-Id: bd29e3e3ca9f6461f420620617c96691a9a9b3f0.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - council meeting 2020-03-08 by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 14:51 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
2 > > > > > > On Mon, 02 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > > Not sure if this is practically able but technically I see an advantage
4 > > from having three distinct states:
5 > > 1. Deprecation -- tooling warns about them but there are no consequences
6 > > for adding new ebuilds.
7 > > 2. Ban I -- tooling errors out, if developers add new ebuilds
8 > > (as in real new ebuilds), we pursue it.
9 >
10 > Does this really occur at a scale that should bother us? The main
11 > blocker for removal of old EAPIs are unmaintained ebuilds, and for
12 > these any levels of more fine-grained bans won't help.
13 >
14
15 Probably not. FWICS during the ban period there was only one commit
16 revbumping EAPI=4 ebuild and adding Prefix support. All other cases
17 of adding EAPI=4 were just reverts of depgraph-breaking commits.
18
19 I used:
20
21 $ git log -p --diff-filter=A --since=2018-04-08
22
23 and grepped it for EAPI=.*4
24
25 --
26 Best regards,
27 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature