Michael Orlitzky posted on Sun, 02 Sep 2012 10:36:13 -0400 as excerpted:
> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs
> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug
> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is
> und
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:58:00 + (UTC)
> Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Of course an individual PM could choose to keep support for as long
> > as they want, but unless I'm missing something, that'd let PMs drop
> > supp
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:58:00 + (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Of course an individual PM could choose to keep support for as long
> as they want, but unless I'm missing something, that'd let PMs drop
> support for old EAPIs if desired, with at least a reasonably sane
> upgrade pat
On 08/30/2012 08:33 PM, Duncan wrote:
> Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:38:11 -0400 as excerpted:
>
>> My main concern is doing bumps all the time just for their own sake.
>
> Yes. That's why I didn't tackle that side at all. But I've seen the
> "PM's can never drop support for an E
Rich Freeman posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:38:11 -0400 as excerpted:
> My main concern is doing bumps all the time just for their own sake.
Yes. That's why I didn't tackle that side at all. But I've seen the
"PM's can never drop support for an EAPI once adopted" thing before, and
while there'
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:02 +0100 as excerpted:
> Some minimum time/versions (say six months) before a PM drops support for
> it, on PM upgrades it starts warning about the coming drop of EAPI-X
> suppor
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:11:02 +0100 as excerpted:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:05:52 -0400 Michael Mol
> wrote:
>> Compile a list of existing ebuilds which depend on old EAPIs, and
>> you've got a TODO list. (eclasses, I don't know; I don't know if
>> eclasses explicitly express
On 25-01-2011 14:25:05 +0200, Alex Alexander wrote:
> We should make repoman print a warning if an older EAPI is used, maybe
> even refuse to commit (without -f), at least on version bumps, to get
> the devs' attention. base-system excluded for now, obviously.
How obvious is that if Python is alr
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:20:30PM +0100, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
> I would like to upgrade tree-wide policy for EAPI usage in main tree.
> Currently we say that developers can use any named version they wish or
> find sufficient.
> I would on
