* review eclass removal policy should it be 2 years since portage 2.1.4.4 went stable? -> all members agreed on removing the 2 year policy -> QA will write a devmanual patch with a 30+ minimum lastrite period for eclass removals Not fixed in <http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-writing/index.html#removing-eclasses>
Point 6 actually mentions the 2 year deadline. However we miss the deadline issue
Fixed
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=commitdiff;h=784e3f9fe82 That's not what they wanted. - removing the 2 year policy - replaced by 30+ days minimum lastrite period for eclass removals (That is: eclasses are handled as ebuilds)
I hope I did it correctly this time
(In reply to comment #4) > I hope I did it correctly this time http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=commitdiff;h=2396e4 No. - QA team doesn't need to be involved in the eclass removal process. - what's an entry in package.mask supposed to do? AND WTF does the council not care at all about their decisions?
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > I hope I did it correctly this time > > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/devmanual.git;a=commitdiff;h=2396e4 > > No. > > - QA team doesn't need to be involved in the eclass removal process. Who will do it?Anyone? > - what's an entry in package.mask supposed to do? > Where does this 30+ lastrite period should be placed? gentoo-dev-announce maybe? But people will forget about that > > AND WTF does the council not care at all about their decisions? >
Created attachment 254813 [details, diff] patch for eclass removal I guess it is time we stepped in. Markos, I think the summary states it clearly, 30+ minimum lastrite (aka email @ -dev-announce). It doesn't have to be done by QA. I've attached a patch. note that this tackles the eclass removal case, not eclass deprecation. another section should be added above this one, detailing how to deprecate an eclass that is currently in use - either because it has a replacement, or because its functionality is not useful anymore.
Created attachment 254817 [details, diff] updated patch hmf, i somehow managed to delete the first < in the file, patch updated.
(In reply to comment #8) > Created an attachment (id=254817) [details] > updated patch > > hmf, i somehow managed to delete the first < in the file, patch updated. > Done. Thank you Should I leave this bug open because as the latest patch says we miss a section for eclass deprecation
Torsten, I think this bug is fixed long time ago and should be closed. What do you think?
Torsten ping? I will close this bug in 48 hours unless there are any objections