| 1 |
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Not sure if this is practically able but technically I see an advantage |
| 4 |
> from having three distinct states: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> 1. Deprecation -- tooling warns about them but there are no consequences |
| 7 |
> for adding new ebuilds. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> 2. Ban I -- tooling errors out, if developers add new ebuilds |
| 10 |
> (as in real new ebuilds), we pursue it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Does this really occur at a scale that should bother us? The main |
| 13 |
blocker for removal of old EAPIs are unmaintained ebuilds, and for |
| 14 |
these any levels of more fine-grained bans won't help. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> 3. Ban II -- no ebuilds left, CI fatal, immediate revert. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ulrich |
Archives