| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:01:53PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch. |
| 4 |
> > Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package, |
| 5 |
> > or any aspect of the package? Do we want it to break completely for |
| 6 |
> > ~arch? In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and |
| 7 |
> > then it still isn't getting tested. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch |
| 10 |
> without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the |
| 11 |
> understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they |
| 12 |
> are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is |
| 13 |
> not a second stable branch. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Nor is it a dumping ground for something you can't be bothered to overlay. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm |
| 18 |
> > not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages |
| 19 |
> > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing |
| 20 |
> > by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that |
| 21 |
> > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested |
| 22 |
> > at all. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> The concern with this argument is the definition of rudimentary testing |
| 25 |
> is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible |
| 26 |
> configurations. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Well it can never be fresh from upstream, even if that upstream is a |
| 29 |
Gentoo developer. eudev is more of a sanity filter, and doesn't claim |
| 30 |
to be upstream. If anything we want more constraints when a Gentoo dev |
| 31 |
is "lead" on a project, as there are even less dykes in the way. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that |
| 34 |
> is where ~arch can help out. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
IOW some packages don't need "wide" testing, which by your yardstick, is |
| 37 |
what anyone with experience/common-sense would call "a beta release." |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users |
| 40 |
> should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the |
| 41 |
> fallout can be. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Yes, and so should Gentoo, when faced with "developers" who think |
| 44 |
themselves exceptions to the rules everyone else should live by. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives