Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 341959 - council changed the waiting period in "eclass removal policy"
Summary: council changed the waiting period in "eclass removal policy"
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Documentation
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Devmanual (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Quality Assurance Team
URL: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-10-21 07:04 UTC by Torsten Veller (RETIRED)
Modified: 2011-11-11 22:08 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
patch for eclass removal (0001-fix-for-bug-341959.patch,2.46 KB, patch)
2010-11-19 11:21 UTC, Alex Alexander (RETIRED)
Details | Diff
updated patch (0001-fix-for-bug-341959.patch,2.32 KB, patch)
2010-11-19 11:23 UTC, Alex Alexander (RETIRED)
Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Torsten Veller (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-10-21 07:04:37 UTC
* 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>
Comment 1 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-10-21 10:46:43 UTC
Point 6 actually mentions the 2 year deadline. However we miss the deadline issue
Comment 2 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-06 15:53:02 UTC
Fixed
Comment 3 Torsten Veller (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-07 07:11:45 UTC
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)
Comment 4 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-07 12:51:38 UTC
I hope I did it correctly this time
Comment 5 Torsten Veller (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-19 10:29:52 UTC
(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?
Comment 6 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-19 11:04:31 UTC
(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?
> 

Comment 7 Alex Alexander (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-19 11:21:23 UTC
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.
Comment 8 Alex Alexander (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-19 11:23:56 UTC
Created attachment 254817 [details, diff]
updated patch

hmf, i somehow managed to delete the first < in the file, patch updated.
Comment 9 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2010-11-24 17:02:54 UTC
(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
Comment 10 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2011-09-13 22:15:10 UTC
Torsten, I think this bug is fixed long time ago and should be closed. What do you think?
Comment 11 Markos Chandras (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2011-11-08 21:05:56 UTC
Torsten ping? I will close this bug in 48 hours unless there are any objections