On 09/05/2012 12:15 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mich...@orlitzky.com> wrote: >> On 09/04/2012 05:06 PM, Brian Harring wrote: >>>> >>>> As a compromise, it could be made policy that "bump to EAPI=foo" bugs >>>> are valid. If someone would benefit from such a bump, he can file a bug >>>> and know that it won't be closed WONTFIX. On the other hand, the dev is >>>> under no more pressure than usual to do the bump. >>> >>> If you attach a patch and have done the legwork, sure. >>> >>> If you're just opening bugs w/ "bump to EAPI=monkeys", bluntly, it's >>> noise and it's annoying. EAPI bump requests for pkgs that need to >>> move forward so an eclass can be cleaned up/moved forward, sure, but >>> arbitrary "please go bump xyz" without a specific reason (and/or >>> legwork done if not) isn't helpful. Kind of equivalent to zero-day >>> bump requests in my view in terms of usefulness. >> >> Except this is what we have now, and isn't a compromise at all. >> > > What use is a bug report requesting an EAPI bump for no reason? There > is no sense in "compromising" and creating such a policy if nobody > actually benefits from it. >
If there's really no reason, why would anyone bother to file a bug for it? It's better for developers than the must-bump policy, and better for users than what we have now.
