On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:37:25PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 12:24:49 > Markos Chandras <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > > On 3 September 2013 12:17, Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dnia 2013-09-03, o godz. 11:53:22 > > > Markos Chandras <[email protected]> napisał(a): > > > > > >> On 3 September 2013 11:45, Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Hello, all. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I'm attaching git-r3.eclass and a patch to git-2.eclass that adds > > >> > ability to use git-r3 internally via make.conf switch. > > >> > > >> I am a bit skeptical about this. Why would someone want to do this > > >> apart from testing the git-r3 eclass without touching > > >> the existing git-r2 compatible ebuilds? And why do you want to do that in > > >> the first place? If the maintainer is happy with how git-r2 works with > > >> his ebuilds > > >> I see no reason to allow users to silently override that eclass. > > > > > > The goal is to give git-r3 most testing it could get before it gets > > > widely used. I'd prefer catching corner cases sooner than later. > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Michał Górny > > > > Ok but I don't think allowing users to override eclasses like this is > > a good thing. > > Maintainers expect the existing ebuilds to work with git-r2. If they > > start getting bugs > > because a user silently overrode the eclass the this is not going to > > be pleasant. > > It is not done silently. It comes with big fat warning at the top: > > + ewarn "Using git-r3 backend in git-2. Not everything is supported." > + ewarn "Expect random failures and have fun testing."
I tend also to want to err on the side of caution here. I don't think users should be able to change something in make.conf that affects which eclass an ebuild uses. I would suggest putting a warning in the git-2.eclass that starts encouraging maintainers to migrate their ebuilds to git-r3. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
