| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 10:36 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>Not every time when I receive a new ebuild submittion, I also test that |
| 7 |
>>package because this is not always possible. Usually, I add the new |
| 8 |
>>ebuild with ~x86 and let testing to the user who request that. It may |
| 9 |
>>not be the orthodox way, but the risk of breaking something else in the |
| 10 |
>>process is 0 (a new ebuild means no other ebuilds depends on it). |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>Add it as ~arch and p.mask it, or get more people to test it *while it |
| 15 |
>is still in bugzilla* until you are pretty sure that it works, *then* |
| 16 |
>add it. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>If an ebuild has a DEPEND on >=foo-1.0 and you add foo-1.2, then it |
| 19 |
>*will* be pulled in as a dependency, so you can't possibly say that |
| 20 |
>nothing depends on it and be serious. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
Please read what I've wrote above. I said "I receive a new ebuild", |
| 25 |
wouldn't I? |
| 26 |
You can keep your straight face... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
As for ~arch and p.mask, please read again |
| 29 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4 |
| 30 |
under "Masked packages". |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
>>Users don't usually come to me and say "that ebuild works for me". I |
| 33 |
>>take silence as a sign that everything works. I am sure I'm not the only |
| 34 |
>>one doing that. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
>No. Everyone else is making sure the ebuild works before adding it. |
| 39 |
>The truth is that you've just been lucky, so far. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
Yeah, luck, that's for sure! I would be more careful before I would make |
| 44 |
such implausible statements. I did worked in portage for about 5-6 |
| 45 |
months, you know, and I wasn't idling on IRC! What are the odds to keep |
| 46 |
being lucky every time ? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
>>I ask arches to mark a new ebuild as stable because a know bug have been |
| 49 |
>>solved or because the old stable version breaks something else. |
| 50 |
>> |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
>Great. Don't start a hissy fit on -dev when they don't mark it stable |
| 54 |
>because they can't test it. Especially when you haven't made a good |
| 55 |
>effort to contact them to resolve the problem. Airing your dirty |
| 56 |
>laundry out in public just makes you look white trash... ;] This isn't |
| 57 |
>Jerry Springer. We don't need to know who your baby's daddy is. A |
| 58 |
>simple email to the mips team could have kept all of this from even |
| 59 |
>being an issue. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
I did apologized to mips team, remember? Again, I apologies for my |
| 64 |
overreaction. I should have waited for a month... |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
This disscution is started to be both juvenile and counter-productive. I |
| 67 |
regret that. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Btw, what is your position, being QA manager and all, regarding |
| 70 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/reports.cgi?product=Gentoo+Linux&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A |
| 71 |
? |
| 72 |
Isn't it one of the top QA's priorities to assure that all known bugs |
| 73 |
are resolved? Or, as ciaranm's membership to mips, you don't do that |
| 74 |
part of the QA? |
Archives