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
On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 14:51 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 02 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote: > > Not sure if this is practically able but technically I see an advantage > > from having three distinct states: > > 1. Deprecation -- tooling warns about them but there are no consequences > > for adding new ebuilds. > > 2. Ban I -- tooling errors out, if developers add new ebuilds > > (as in real new ebuilds), we pursue it. > > Does this really occur at a scale that should bother us? The main > blocker for removal of old EAPIs are unmaintained ebuilds, and for > these any levels of more fine-grained bans won't help. >
Probably not. FWICS during the ban period there was only one commit revbumping EAPI=4 ebuild and adding Prefix support. All other cases of adding EAPI=4 were just reverts of depgraph-breaking commits. I used: $ git log -p --diff-filter=A --since=2018-04-08 and grepped it for EAPI=.*4 -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

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