On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 04:23:33 +0200
Dawid Węgliński <cla@g.o> wrote:

> I don't think it's ok. ~arch isn't training ground. It's supposed to
> work, so asking arch teams to keywords packages that are not supposed
> to work isn't good.

We have a "testing" branch and a "stable" branch, defined by the
KEYWORDS variable in the ebuilds. Package.masking stuff saying you're
"testing" is at the least uninformative and highly confusing and
unfriendly to would-be testers when in the very same context this
already means something different (namely, it's been too short a
while, wait one or two months for this version to go stable, as the
~arch keywords would suggest).

The same term shouldn't be used to denote two ways of masking ebuilds,
but that's beside the point of providing good reasons to package.mask
ebuilds.

> > Even saying that it would kill puppies would be more valid. Just be
> > honest and tell people what is going on. Tell them that if they use
> > Opera snapshots, they shouldn't care about losing mail or experience
> > frequent crashes while browsing. Anything really, just don't tell
> > them you're "testing" or you find yourself excluding them from the
> > party with a really bad excuse.
> 
> This is the place i agree with you. Anyway i think package still
> should be p.masked with good explanation of why it is masked.

Welcome to the starting point of this thread! ;-)


Kind regards,
     JeR