From the recent thread on upgrade paths: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/5fd535476c0554c0b5425d4e40e5ed48 https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/ffa0ba8272d4ac4cb1d78aa954e716ce I link to both messages b/c I _think_ the request was to document the "1 year" policy.
*** Bug 825754 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I wasn't super clear in what we should do here: we should document whatever the requirement is for upgrade paths, e.g. "a user should be able to upgrade a system not updated for <N period>", and suggest ways to achieve this, e.g. news items(?), not using newer EAPIs in critical packages.
For more context, the council meeting summary (https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20091109-summary.txt): "Upgrade path for old systems ---------------------------- Vote (unanimous): The ebuild tree must provide an upgrade path to a stable system that hasn't been updated for one year. Action: leio will start a discussion on gentoo-dev on if and how to support upgrading systems that are outdated more than a year." What an "upgrade path" actually means doesn't seem to be defined in the log (https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20091109.txt), so seems some clarification about that is necessary
Any suggestion where to add this? "EAPI Usage and Description"? https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/eapi/index.html
No further Council involvement required at present.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=57ba0f67f138341373555447371bd125e34e5b1c commit 57ba0f67f138341373555447371bd125e34e5b1c Author: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-01-10 01:20:35 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-02-22 07:11:24 +0000 ebuild-writing/eapi: document upgrade path policy The "upgrade path" policy is not particularly well-defined; over the years, various people have come to understand it as "two years", "one year", with mixed interpretations within that (is it enough to be able to upgrade just Portage?) This is a start towards formalising policy here, even if we end up changing it later, at least it's codified. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/821553 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> ebuild-writing/eapi/text.xml | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) Additionally, it has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/devmanual.git/commit/?id=9db2bfb9151258ce62a1854774a6d3bf60734af2 commit 9db2bfb9151258ce62a1854774a6d3bf60734af2 Author: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-01-10 01:25:20 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-02-22 07:11:27 +0000 ebuild-writing/eapi: mention blocker retention period Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/821553 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual/pull/261 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> ebuild-writing/eapi/text.xml | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
