-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/09/13 08:19 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > 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. >
To be honest, I see no problems with the option to source git-3 within git-2 -- it's for testing, it's internal, it's not meant to be supportable, and it's a precursor to official git-3 adoption and deprecation of git-2. There is a warning already that end-users will see (as will we, in build.log's if bugs are filed), and I don't think it's any more dangerous than say, setting 'I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING="yes"' in make.conf. If this were to be an option that was explicitly meant for end-users to use on a regular basis, then I would agree that it's not proper. But this isn't some sort of official new feature, it's just a workaround to allow something to get more testing. I would be quite surprised if anyone outside of ebuild developers/maintainers (whether they be dev's or otherwise) would enable this option, or even know it exists (outside of those that read this ML, of course) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlInPKQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDrrgD+MyynAyYF4u9WhH/eAn2XT26P OZIfSpVSdVB7/fdeqcEA+wUJgThucM5pZdf3QY8g2T15GA6McED+Hc/iABQG85Gk =Tp+l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
