Hi all,

I'm not QA, but I'll go ahead and add my comments to this also.

On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Tom???? Chv??tal wrote:
> * Masking beta...
> This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break previous 
> behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software should not be 
> masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable).
 
 Agreed.  If it works and does not cause issues for users or degrade
 their experience, it should be in ~arch, not in p.mask.

> Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still relevant (why 
> on earth we have masked 4.0.3_p20070403 version of screen when newer 4.3 is 
> stable ;]) and remove the branch+mask when needed.
 
Definitely.  If a newer version of a package is stable, or in
~arch for that matter, why do we still have the old version in the tree
and masked while the newer version is unmasked?

> * Masking live...
> Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask. KEYWORDS="". 
> Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note, in overlays do what 
> ever you want, since it does not polute the main mask from g-x86).
 
 True.  If we mask live ebuilds with KEYWORDS="", there isn't a reason
 to put them in p.mask that I can think of.

> * Masking stable releases...
> Here i found most interesting stuff around (for example mask for testing from 
> 2006, yeah not ~ material after 3 years?! :P)
> There should be policy defined that you can add the new release under p.mask if 
> you see it fit, but the mask can stay only for 6 months (less/more, 
> suggestions?) and then it must be unmasked, or have really high activity on 
> tracker bug and good reasoning (mask for ruby-1.9 and so on).
 
Off the top of my head, I think this falls under category 1 above as
well.  If a new release of a package and everything that uses the new
package can be installed in a way that does not degrade the user's
experience if they want to use the older release, it doesn't need to be
in p.mask.  In general, I don't think a new release of a package should
be added to p.mask unless it fits category 1 above.

Things that have been "masked for testing" for years need to have
a decision made about them -- keep them in the tree and unmask them or
remove them.

-- 
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
williamh@g.o