| 1 |
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 29 May 2014, Andreas K Huettel wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Let's decide that the maximum number of EAPIs allowed in the portage |
| 5 |
>> tree at any time must not exceed 7. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> 7, since then EAPI=6 can still go ahead as planned. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>> Any new plans afterwards can only proceed if EAPI=1 is finally gone |
| 10 |
>> (achievable), and for more improvements the bar gets a bit higher |
| 11 |
>> afterwards. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That's tree policy, but doesn't prevent PMS and package managers from |
| 14 |
> supporting more than that number of EAPIs. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In fact, we could finalise the new EAPI, but devs would only be |
| 17 |
> allowed to commit such ebuilds to the tree when one of the old EAPIs |
| 18 |
> is gone. Nice way to increase peer pressure. :-) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I like the idea of controlling the number of EAPIs in the tree. I |
| 21 |
don't like doing it this way. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If the Council thinks there are too many EAPIs, then don't approve any |
| 24 |
more until it is fixed. Having everybody starting flamewars on the |
| 25 |
list about fixing their ebuilds or don't touch my ebuilds or whatever |
| 26 |
because projects are stepping on each other's toes seems like |
| 27 |
dereliction of duty on the part of the Council. What's the point of |
| 28 |
having an elected body to make decisions if they're just going to say, |
| 29 |
"here you go, we created a mess for you, now figure out how to sort it |
| 30 |
out and let us know if you have any agenda items for next month...?" |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm all for picking a guideline like 7, but in the end the same |
| 33 |
council that sets the limit can change the limit or ignore the limit. |
| 34 |
It is like having Congress set a budget limit - they can change the |
| 35 |
limit as quickly as they set it, and they can even do it in the same |
| 36 |
law that goes over the limit. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
The Council has already taken measures to start deprecating EAPIs, and |
| 39 |
I'd hope the next Council will continue this in a sensible fashion. |
| 40 |
However, we can't dictate what they'll do, and if there is a good |
| 41 |
reason for the number to be 8 then they can make it 8. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Rich |
Archives