| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 25/10/12 08:41 AM, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 19.10.2012 16.52, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Hey all -- there was just a discussion in #gentoo-dev about |
| 7 |
>> this, so following up here.. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> I don't think changing EAPI for stable packages is allowed. That |
| 10 |
> means we are only talking about testing packages for this thread |
| 11 |
> and I think there it's fine to follow the established rule already |
| 12 |
> mentioned. If developers break things continuously without |
| 13 |
> testing, take up the issue with QA. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
[ Merge! ] |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Also please post these things |
| 20 |
> to gentoo-dev mailing list next time. This mailing list is for |
| 21 |
> project wide non technical issues. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It was suggested to me to post here because #1) it's a policy |
| 25 |
discussion rather than a technical one, and #2) it reaches a bigger |
| 26 |
audience as many devs have tuned out to gentoo-dev@ .. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As for your previous statement -- I was not aware of a policy that |
| 29 |
excludes EAPI bumps from occurring on stable packages. This would |
| 30 |
certainly suffice to alleviate the original concerns and probably be |
| 31 |
more effective as a policy than always requiring revbump on EAPI change. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlCJO7kACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBSzQD8Cj5o3NdNSRU7d/GmUwPw5nnl |
| 37 |
whHrdX4s7kYjU7uMZz4A/izpnDcekv/QNaskk6LUHuUPnFNPcRMGc2nlY0qACZYY |
| 38 |
=JHtD |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives