On Wednesday 03 March 2010 03:47:37 Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
Dne 3.3.2010 08:52, Ryan Hill napsal(a):
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:52:55 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote:
On 03/02/2010 08:27 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Members of Gentoo Python Project have agreed to deprecate the following
On Friday 05 March 2010 15:14:33 Ryan Hill wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:12:36 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote:
Because there is so little benefit from removing old functions. What is
so bad about having them grouped at the bottom of the file inside a
deprecated section?
Because then people use
On 03/05/2010 10:14 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
Because then people use them. Don't ask me why. I have things I deprecated
over two years ago still being used by a dozen ebuilds bumped within the last
three months. You should be familiar with this behaviour wrt.
built_with_use. So, when I'm
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010, Petteri Räty wrote:
I think removal of functions is a special case of Adding and
Updating Eclasses and we already have a policy for this.
Removing functions needs a migration plan. For example how long to
have a warning there, how long before it can be removed etc.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dne 3.3.2010 08:52, Ryan Hill napsal(a):
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:52:55 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 03/02/2010 08:27 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Members of Gentoo Python Project have agreed to deprecate
2010/3/3 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org:
Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current policy. If
you want to do it, you should discuss about changing policy.
?!
since when?
Since ever.
If you change eclass abi you need to rename it.
I think you can *add* functions
On 3.3.2010 11.23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
2010/3/3 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org:
Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current policy. If
you want to do it, you should discuss about changing policy.
?!
since when?
Since ever.
If you change eclass abi you need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:37 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current
policy. If you want to do it, you should discuss about changing
policy.
since when?
Since ever.
On 03/03/2010 02:47 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:47:37 +0100
Tomáa Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org wrote:
Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current
policy. If you want to do it, you should discuss about changing
policy.
since when?
Since ever.
If you
On 03/03/2010 02:40 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:09:49 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 3.3.2010 11.23, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
2010/3/3 Tomáš Chvátal scarab...@gentoo.org:
Removing eclass functions like this is not allowed by current policy. If
you want to
On 03/03/2010 11:39 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
Also policies should be changed when they don't make sense any more as I
said in my first response but I am not sure if that's the case here.
The problem is I don't think this is actually a policy. One of the first
projects I did as a developer,
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010, Petteri Räty wrote:
If we decide allowing removal of functions, we should come up with a
common procedure like the eclass removal policy:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html
I think removal of functions is a special case of Adding and Updating
Eclasses
On 03/04/2010 09:39 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010, Petteri Räty wrote:
If we decide allowing removal of functions, we should come up with a
common procedure like the eclass removal policy:
http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html
I think removal of functions
13 matches
Mail list logo
