On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:07:29 -0500 Jim Ramsay <l...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > People are struggling with the one level scheme we have now. We're > > already having to produce fancy tables and summaries for new EAPIs > > because people can't keep track of when features came along. Two > > levels just means no-one will remember any of it. > > I disagree with your assertion that people are struggling - I think > things are very nicely documented in PMS and the devmanual, which are > where all EAPI changes should be documented in the future, regardless > if you specify the EAPI in the file, the extension, or both.
They only ended up nicely documented after people moaned a lot that they were having a hard time keeping track of EAPIs... > Two levels really just means that any fancy tables will have to have > one extra row (or perhaps a series of fancy tables) and any summaries > will have to have an extra section added whenever a new filename > extension becomes necessary. It'll mean people will carry on having to use the tables, and won't start remembering things as time goes on. > If I understand the '.eapi3.eb' to which you make passing reference, > this is just a fancy hand-wavy way to say "Look, the true .eb > extension won't ever change, just the .eapi3 part which isn't > technically the extension..." which isn't a compromise at all - It's > an attempt to (cleverly?) obfuscate where in the filename the EAPI is > stored. Yup. And yet there're people who are perfectly happy with .eapi3.eb who hate GLEP 55. That should tell you all you need to know about what's going on here... -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
