On 11.7.2021 23.54, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
>
>
> The point of contention was a proposed change to the EAPI depreciation
> workflow. The current workflow consists of roughly three steps:
>
> 1. The Council decides to deprecate an EAPI. It is added to eapis-
> deprecated in layou
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 use
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 r
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 04:21:02PM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it's not clear to me what will be the consequences of this change.
>
> I am expecting good faith and that nobody will add an ebuild with deprecated
> EAPI just for fun or because maintainer prefers retro stuff.
>
> So
Hi,
it's not clear to me what will be the consequences of this change.
I am expecting good faith and that nobody will add an ebuild with
deprecated EAPI just for fun or because maintainer prefers retro stuff.
So looking at the reasons to bump without touching EAPI:
a) Because of a changing d
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 s
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 "banne
On Sun, Jul 11, 2021 at 10:54:45PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hi, everyone.
>
> The Council has eventually decided that the proposed agenda item
> changing the EAPI workflow has not received sufficient public
> discussion, so I'd like to restart it.
>
>
> 3. When all ebuilds are removed, the E
Il giorno dom 11 lug 2021 alle ore 22:55 Michał Górny
ha scritto:
[snip]
>
> This decision will also affect another posted agenda item, namely
> banning EAPI 5. Switching to the new workflow will eliminate that step,
> and therefore EAPI 5 won't be "banned" until all EAPI 5 ebuilds are
> removed
Hi, everyone.
The Council has eventually decided that the proposed agenda item
changing the EAPI workflow has not received sufficient public
discussion, so I'd like to restart it.
The point of contention was a proposed change to the EAPI depreciation
workflow. The current workflow consists of r
10 matches
Mail list logo
