On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > That time you think you are saving, will be need to be lost if, for > example, some QA policy appears in the future to move to try to run > tests in parallel when possible, or force verbose output.
So you're suggesting that I should invest 15 minutes of my time now so that I MIGHT not have to invest 15 minutes of my time later? And that I should continue to invest 15 minutes every time a new EAPI comes along? That's like asking a banker to give you $5 now, so that in a year or two you might be able to give them $5 back. If we are going to tell people to do something NOW then there should be a tangible benefit NOW, or at least on some reasonably near date you can actually identify. For packages where users get some immediate benefit from an EAPI bump I'm all for pushing for them. However, I wouldn't name the project the "Tree Wide EAPI4 bump." Instead I'd call it the "Tree Wide Parallel Testing Initiative" or "Eliminate Revdep-rebuild Bonanza" or whatever. Yes, I realize that sometimes A has to happen before B, and I'm not suggesting that we can't plan ahead. However, we should be planning ahead for something in particular, and actually have the plan. It does us no good to have a "Tree Wide Parallel Testing Initiative" if somebody else isn't at least working on the "Tree Wide Parallel Testing Tinderbox." If all you're telling me is that I should spend 15 min bumping to EAPI 2, then 3, then 4, so that eventually I won't have to spend 15 min upgrading from EAPI 2 straight to 7, I can't really see the point. Rich
