On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:

> Please people,
> 
> 
>    if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.

Um... no?  One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and then unleashed
on the general population.  It's not like we're putting masked stuff in
the tree with the hope that someone will find it and try it out.  You
mask a package, ask the user or whoever to test it, and unmask it when
it's ready.  We don't just throw untested stuff into the tree when we
suspect problems with it. ~arch is not a playground.  Already one of
the major complaints we see against Gentoo time and time again is that
it breaks too often and the maintenance burden is too high.  Why would
we want to exacerbate that?

We don't /want/ ~arch systems to get "automatically widely exposed to
the stuff we're intending to get tested".  That's the whole point of
masking it!  We want it tested by a few people before we expose it to
the unwashed masses.

So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just
as it always has been.  Sorry.


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662