| 1 |
On 25.10.2012 16:16, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Also please post these things |
| 6 |
>> to gentoo-dev mailing list next time. This mailing list is for |
| 7 |
>> project wide non technical issues. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It was suggested to me to post here because #1) it's a policy |
| 11 |
> discussion rather than a technical one, and #2) it reaches a bigger |
| 12 |
> audience as many devs have tuned out to gentoo-dev@ .. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
My educated guess is that most of those who are tuned out of gentoo-dev |
| 16 |
don't follow this mailing list either. Last time we looked at |
| 17 |
subscription numbers gentoo-project had less people than gentoo-dev. |
| 18 |
Those who suggested you to post here didn't know our mailing list |
| 19 |
policies. Granted it's not always easy to know where to post. Discussing |
| 20 |
technical policies belongs to gentoo-dev. Especially in matters like |
| 21 |
these that concern the Portage tree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> As for your previous statement -- I was not aware of a policy that |
| 25 |
> excludes EAPI bumps from occurring on stable packages. This would |
| 26 |
> certainly suffice to alleviate the original concerns and probably be |
| 27 |
> more effective as a policy than always requiring revbump on EAPI change. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
There's a general policy that one should refrain from changing the logic |
| 31 |
for ebuilds marked stable. EAPIs so far haven't introduced features that |
| 32 |
would require being urgently but to stable. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
regards, |
| 35 |
Petteri |
Archives