On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> Is it worth the effort? Yes, see below. > >> Is it a high priority task? No. > >> > > > > It sounds like all that has been done is to log a tracker and create > > some bugs. That is hardly a major burden on anybody. If it nudges > > people to bump the EAPI when they're doing other work so much the > > better, but there doesn't seem to be a drop-dead date yet. > > > > If devs don't want to think about EAPI cleanup they don't have to right > now. > > No, not true. Look at the blocking bugs. We're asking arch teams to > retest and restabilize ebuilds whose only difference is the EAPI bump. > > Ultimate the arch teams are supposed to test the ebuild (that it works), so when we change the EAPI of the ebuild re-testing is required. If we only cared about the ebuild (that it worked or not) we could use automation to cut down on the humans involved in this work. -A
