Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> posted 1223017599.29403.2.camel@localhost
,
excerpted below, on  Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:06:39 +0300:

> Of course when that initial testing is done with helping users, the
> reason could be modified to tell things broke and what the tracking bug
> is, or unmasked if it works fine with other packages.

From previous discussions on this, that's really the point (besides the 
one about not masking it if testing is needed, which toolchain for 
instance pretty much has to do anyway).  If it has a tracking bug, it has 
the necessary info.  If it's just "masked for testing", the necessary 
info isn't there.

This helps me as a user who often does that sort of testing, too.  Masked 
for testing simply isn't that useful.  A tracking bug, where I can see 
how that testing is progressing and what other sorts of stuff I might 
expect to have issues with if I DO test, now THAT's actual practical 
info!  Simply "masked for testing" is little better than no comment at 
all, or than a package revision bump without a changelog entry telling me 
what the big deal was that was worth the revision.  (That's another 
irritating one, but fortunately it doesn't happen so often any more.  
Thanks guys!)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman