| 1 |
Hi all, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'm not QA, but I'll go ahead and add my comments to this also. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Tom???? Chv??tal wrote: |
| 6 |
> * Masking beta... |
| 7 |
> This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break previous |
| 8 |
> behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software should not be |
| 9 |
> masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Agreed. If it works and does not cause issues for users or degrade |
| 12 |
their experience, it should be in ~arch, not in p.mask. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still relevant (why |
| 15 |
> on earth we have masked 4.0.3_p20070403 version of screen when newer 4.3 is |
| 16 |
> stable ;]) and remove the branch+mask when needed. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Definitely. If a newer version of a package is stable, or in |
| 19 |
~arch for that matter, why do we still have the old version in the tree |
| 20 |
and masked while the newer version is unmasked? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> * Masking live... |
| 23 |
> Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask. KEYWORDS="". |
| 24 |
> Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note, in overlays do what |
| 25 |
> ever you want, since it does not polute the main mask from g-x86). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
True. If we mask live ebuilds with KEYWORDS="", there isn't a reason |
| 28 |
to put them in p.mask that I can think of. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> * Masking stable releases... |
| 31 |
> Here i found most interesting stuff around (for example mask for testing from |
| 32 |
> 2006, yeah not ~ material after 3 years?! :P) |
| 33 |
> There should be policy defined that you can add the new release under p.mask if |
| 34 |
> you see it fit, but the mask can stay only for 6 months (less/more, |
| 35 |
> suggestions?) and then it must be unmasked, or have really high activity on |
| 36 |
> tracker bug and good reasoning (mask for ruby-1.9 and so on). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Off the top of my head, I think this falls under category 1 above as |
| 39 |
well. If a new release of a package and everything that uses the new |
| 40 |
package can be installed in a way that does not degrade the user's |
| 41 |
experience if they want to use the older release, it doesn't need to be |
| 42 |
in p.mask. In general, I don't think a new release of a package should |
| 43 |
be added to p.mask unless it fits category 1 above. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Things that have been "masked for testing" for years need to have |
| 46 |
a decision made about them -- keep them in the tree and unmask them or |
| 47 |
remove them. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
William Hubbs |
| 51 |
gentoo accessibility team lead |
| 52 |
williamh@g.o |
Archives