| 1 |
On Sep 18, 2011 12:05 PM, "Ciaran McCreesh" <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:20:34 +0000 |
| 4 |
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > As we're talking about updating profiles EAPI, what do we need to get |
| 6 |
> > to be able to mask use flags for the stable tree, but not the testing |
| 7 |
> > tree? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Every time this has come up, the conclusion has been "it's a horrible |
| 10 |
> idea from a QA perspective, since it would mean that testing something |
| 11 |
> in ~arch would be different to testing it in arch". |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Isn't that already true from a dependency standpoint? I do see your point, |
| 15 |
but the concept of rolling out a risky flag to the brave first does make |
| 16 |
sense. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think the biggest issue with ~arch is when things get deployed there for a |
| 19 |
very long time before hitting stable. That applies to libraries, |
| 20 |
baselayout-2, or flags. Things shouldn't go to ~arch unless we have a plan |
| 21 |
to make them stable (excepting one-offs). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives