On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:39 PM, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Alec Warner <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > 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
