On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Andreas K. Huettel
>>> > <dilfri...@gentoo.org> 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.
>
> Of course, but that's not the point...
>

Strictly speaking nobody is forcing the arch teams to test any of
these bumps either.  They are as free to choose to work on those bugs
as anybody else.

-- 
Rich

Reply via email to