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
under no
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
support for
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 EAPI
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 path for
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 mike...@gmail.com
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
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
support,
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's
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 other
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
