On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 10:36:13AM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 09/02/2012 09:46 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfri...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > >> What I dont actually understand at all is why bumping the EAPI should be so > >> complicated or involved that it even deserves so much resistance... > > > > <rant>Ok, it REALLY annoys me when people pull out this kind of a line > > in an argument... If it isn't all that complicated or involved and it > > just makes so much sense, then why do we bother to waste time asking > > for it to be made policy, since obviously everybody will just do it > > anyway... > > > > Believe it or not, people who take up an opposing side in a debate > > don't ALWAYS do it because they're simply dumber than you. That is, > > unless they're arguing with me... :) </rant> > > > > > I think everyone would be happier if all ebuilds in the tree were EAPI4. > On the other hand, Rich is right that making this a policy will have the > opposite of the intended effect: developers just won't fix bugs in > EAPI<4 ebuilds when they don't have time to do the EAPI bump (one could > easily spend a few hours on this). > > As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs > are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug > and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is > under no more pressure than usual to do the bump.
If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure. If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's noise and it's annoying. EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or legwork done if not) isn't helpful. Kind of equivalent to zero-day bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness. ~harring
