On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Fernando J. Pereda <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2008, at 18:39, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> At this point, we should really only discuss features that all 3 package
>> managers have implemented.
> I'm not sure this intersection isn't empty :/
How about we define this as EAPI=0? =)
Jokes aside, I agree with you. Features that all three package
managers have already implemented (release or beta) are quite
uninteresting. However, this will make for a more sane discussion, and
will _actually_ result in an EAPI=2 getting approved, say, in the next
I say this is better than a feature-complete EAPI=2 that stays on hold
for a year because we can't collectively decide on it, results in
PM-specific overlays, loud bitching about how nothing ever gets done,
and results in overall wastage of energy.
> We might, however, only discuss features that all 3 package managers can
> implement easily.
I say this should be done in the context of EAPI=3 once we all agree
on what EAPI=2 should contain (let's take it slow
If we start discussing EAPI=3 *now*, we _might_ get it out 6 months later ;p
1. Sorry, that's how open source usually works
email@example.com mailing list