> Bottom line is that what a developer MUST do is a matter of what > people will bother to complain to Devrel about, and what Devrel will > bother to enforce. For the most part this boils down to common sense.
Err... if that's the part you worry about, I'm personally completely happy if
we just all agree that it's common sense to stick to the newest council-
approved development with fullest feature set. no need to put it in writing
any more than as a "strong recommendation". :)
> And since EAPIs
> aren't actually ordered, is the latest one whichever is actually last
> approved, or the one which is "most functional?" Suppose EAPI xml
To be honest I personally consider that ("eapis are not ordered") an
abomination, and my personal wish would be to keep them large-scale ordered
with (among one major version) unordered sub-versions ("4-xxx") if needed. or
at least keep all PMS-approved eapis ordered. "Experimental eapis for use in
third party software" should not require any mentioning in pms anyway. :]
However, that is a different discussion. Someday I'll start a separate
flamewar^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmailing list thread about it.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfri...@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
