On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:03:55PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > Except this is what we have now,
Yes, I stated it because I view it as useful/sane. > and isn't a compromise at all. I think you're mistaken in assuming a compromise is the required outcome of this. Given the choice between something productive, and something not productive, you don't choose the quasi-productive solution. Bluntly, chasing EAPI versions w/out gain is a waste of time; others may think "but it should be EAPI4- the latest!"- and they'd be wrong. You bump when there is a reason to do so, or when from a maintenance standoint you've got time (now) to do so and can push it forward- getting ahead of future work. Keep in mind the rule "every change carries a risk"- while the risk is generally stupidly low, it's something I don't think you're being cognizant of in this notion of trying to get everything at EAPI whatever. Filing a bunch of "please bump this to EAPI-whatever" is just annoying nagging, it doesn't accomplish anything nor is the ticket particularly useful on it's own. A "Please bump to EAPI4 due to issue xyz" is useful- there is a core reason beyond "hey, EAPI4 is the latest AND EVERYTHING MUST BE THE LATEST GREATEST!!!" :) Same angle for EAPI5 and user patching... yes, devs will have a reason to move it forward, but user patching is going to be used by a *small* fraction of our userbase. Meaning if you want it, you're likely going to need to do the legwork bumping things forward, else you're on the devs time/prioritizations. Not saying it's perfect, but the comments above are realistic rather than trying to compromise against the realities of the situation. ;) ~harring
