1 |
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Steve Dibb wrote: |
2 |
> Because package.mask in CVS for profiles is so huge, I think it might |
3 |
> help it to get organized if we split it up a bit. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> halcyon had a good idea for the scheme: testing, broken, removal. That |
6 |
> seems to sum up the main 3 reason that a package would be masked. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Right now there are 679 entries in package.mask. The reason I came up |
9 |
> with the idea was to find a way to make it easier for treecleaners to |
10 |
> quickly see which ones they were working on. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I'd like to take the discussion to -dev but wanted to get QA's thoughts |
13 |
> first. I haven't looked into whether or not this is technically |
14 |
> feasible at all. |
15 |
|
16 |
i think the real solution here is allowing masking in a package |
17 |
-mike |