On 07/11/2010 07:37 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > >> Simply put, the council's purpose is not to say "oh we have to stop >> development and have a 4 week debate about everything minor". The >> council's purpose is to help decide between different technical >> solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path. >> The council's purpose is not to HINDER development as your responses >> clearly suggest you would like to hinder eclass development but >> instead to promote positive development. >
Original rules (as they were when I joined 2005): You are only allowed to add to the public API of an eclass. Eclass removal addition: Since then council has approved the ability to fully remove eclasses: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090528-summary.txt Under discussion: Extend the rules to allow developers to remove functions from the API of an eclass. To me this seem exactly like: "The council's purpose is to help decide between different technical solutions and encourage people to move forward on one unified path." > > About the issue in discussion, Petteri was recalling that contrary to > what anyone new to Gentoo might conclude from the current discussion, > the issue of eclass deprecation has been subject to at least 2 separate > discussions in the past 2 or 3 years and that in the last round there > was a proposal for setting minimal deprecation time frames. > There's already an approved process for eclass removal (see link above). If we allow removal of functions I think there should a similar set of rules as for eclass and package removal. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
