On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:59:06PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2021-07-12 at 09:33 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Marek Szuba wrote: > > > On 2021-07-11 21:54, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > My gut feeling is that having this distinction is useful. However, it > > > > has been pointed out that we've probably never really had to use it > > > > (i.e. use the "banned" argument to stop someone from using old EAPI) > > > > and that the switch from "deprecated" to "banned" state did not really > > > > affect porting away from old EAPI. > > > > > > For the benefit of those not interested in sifting through the logs of > > > Council meetings, here is a quick reiteration of my take on this: > > > > > > 1. Maybe it's my professional bend speaking but it feels to me like we > > > really should establish a clear, GLEP-documented EAPI life cycle with > > > well-defined meaning of individual stages. I will work on preparing a > > > suitable proposal; > > > > > > 2. Until the above has introduced a (hopefully) better system, I am all > > > for > > > removing step 2 because it makes the procedure less bureaucratic. > > > > > > > > > On 2021-07-12 02:11, Aaron Bauman wrote: > > > > > > > Just officially ban it, send out a message, and use the best judgement > > > > when enforcing it (should it even need to be enforced). > > > > > > And the point of establishing a policy doomed from start to be enforced > > > weakly or not at all is? Other than making the Council look like we care > > > more about theatrics than actual governance, that is. > > > > > > -- > > > Marecki > > > > > > > It is not theatrics. It is a policy that was effective in the past and > > is used in lieu of a technical measure. Albeit, it is unlikely to be > > enforced because most people abide by the deprecation warnings. > > > > That's the whole point. Do we need a two-step deprecation/ban if 'most' > people abide by deprecation warnings? > > I'm wondering if the two-step deprecation/ban isn't a symptom of a wider > problem. After all, we want people to stop using old EAPIs after > they're deprecated, not after they're explicitly forbidden to use them. > > Maybe the whole point is that we should stop trying to draw explicit > lines everywhere and instead assume -- per common sense -- that > deprecating is enough for people to eventually stop using them. >
As said, in lieu of that we have a fail safe.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
