Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-25 Thread Luca Barbato
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Uhm. Do you think these ideas of yours through at all before posting them? Being rude doesn't make you cool. (Nor make your points more effective) Either you think the entire tree should be switched to a new EAPI in one go, in which case how on earth is that going to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-25 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:19:12 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Uhm. Do you think these ideas of yours through at all before posting them? Being rude doesn't make you cool. (Nor make your points more effective) That's not being rude. It's an attempt to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-25 Thread Maciej Mrozowski
On Wednesday 25 of March 2009 15:19:36 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: Being rude doesn't make you cool. (Nor make your points more effective) That's not being rude. [...] (no comment) so you're doing them a discourtesy by wasting their time by repeatedly posting ideas you haven't thought

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-25 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:06:47 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: Considering average post count and Gentoo membership on that list, I'm pretty convinced you're not entitled to decide who is wasting developers' time. When you've gained enough experience and knowledge to be able to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-25 Thread Alec Warner
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:06:47 +0100 Maciej Mrozowski reave...@poczta.fm wrote: Considering average post count and Gentoo membership on that list, I'm pretty convinced you're not entitled to decide who is

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-24 Thread Luca Barbato
Patrick Lauer wrote: [deprecating stuff] I'd rather switch to git first, have eapi in separate branches then, make sure we can provide eapi-N compatibility/migration tree snapshots and then warn people so there will be a easy way to provide fallbacks. Before that I'm afraid it would take too

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-24 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:40:05 +0100 Luca Barbato lu_z...@gentoo.org wrote: I'd rather switch to git first, have eapi in separate branches then, make sure we can provide eapi-N compatibility/migration tree snapshots and then warn people so there will be a easy way to provide fallbacks. Uhm. Do

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-22 Thread Robert R. Russell
On Saturday 21 March 2009 19:03:45 AllenJB wrote: Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-22 Thread Matti Bickel
Peter Alfredsen loki_...@gentoo.org wrote: I think we should start deprecating EAPI=0 usage *now* with a repoman warning whenever a new ebuild is committed that does not use EAPI=1 or EAPI=2. This warning should encourage use of the newest EAPI, EAPI=2. A general question, that just popped

EAPI roadmap (was: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0)

2009-03-22 Thread Thilo Bangert
Peter Alfredsen loki_...@gentoo.org said: On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:41:58 +0100 Matti Bickel m...@gentoo.org wrote: A general question, that just popped into my head when i was reading this: if i touch a ebuild which has EAPI=0, should i bump it to EAPI=2? Only if you take the time to read

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-22 Thread Dawid Węgliński
On Saturday 21 of March 2009 21:53:16 Patrick Lauer wrote: On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:21:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. Be more specific, what actual problems have you

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
Alec Warner schrieb am 21.03.2009 20:45: Be more specific, what actual problems have you encountered? What are some other ways we could mitigate these issues (it seems like tool improvements could be a big one here)? Regarding the depreciation of EAPI's I think eclasses will probably

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point in the future. Uh. Why? Introducing a policy

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Markos Chandras
On Saturday 21 March 2009 19:37:12 Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alexey Shvetsov
Alec Warner wrote: I am interested in the number of ebuilds at specific APIs in the tree, do you have those numbers? Basically, how much work is this (raw ebuild count)? Total ebuilds 26209 EAPI0 ebuilds 22880 EAPI1 ebuilds 1855 EAPI2 ebuilds 1474 this numbers based on regexps =) --

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:21:47 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until EAPI0 can be obsoleted at

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, so we don't have to rewrite tons of things. So? When people do new things, they

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Alexey Shvetsov wrote: Alec Warner wrote: I am interested in the number of ebuilds at specific APIs in the tree, do you have those numbers? Basically, how much work is this (raw ebuild count)? Total ebuilds 26209 EAPI0 ebuilds 22880 EAPI1 ebuilds 1855 EAPI2 ebuilds 1474 this numbers

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which eapi has which features available. And eapi1 is a superset of eapi0, so we don't have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:02:54 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: So? When people do new things, they can move the EAPI forward. That's not a reason to modify existing things. The added complexity of having a dozen eapis does not offer any benefits to the average developer. There

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On Saturday 21 March 2009 21:55:20 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: Because, as you have noticed before, developers get confused which eapi has which

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Peter Alfredsen
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:37:12 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some time to EAPI1 or higher until EAPI0 can be obsoleted at some point in the future. I would set the start of deprecation

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Patrick Lauer
On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote: Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. Making 1 or 2 the default for new packages, sure. But rewriting existing things? That's just an

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:51:11 +0100 Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: The same kind that always happens when lots of ebuilds get changed. ... lots of new features and a few bugs that get fixed the next day? Hey, that sounds quite bad. And maybe some new herd testers? How

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread Alec Warner
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote: On Saturday 21 March 2009 22:26:41 Alec Warner wrote: Introducing a policy encouraging moving things that definitely aren't in the least bit likely to be a system dep on a bump, sure. Making 1 or 2 the default

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Deprecating EAPI0

2009-03-21 Thread AllenJB
Patrick Lauer wrote: Hi all, with the discussion about EAPI3 we have now 4 (or 7, depending on how you count them ;) ) EAPIs available or almost available. This is getting quite confusing. To make our lives easier I would suggest deprecating EAPI0 and migrating existing ebuilds over some