| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Hi Markos, |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my |
| 8 |
>> boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and |
| 9 |
>> Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment: |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> # Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> (03 May 2014) |
| 12 |
>> # Masked for further testing |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Oh, that good old "masked for testing", which actually never works. If |
| 15 |
> you want testing to be done, you don't mask stuff. Also, no bug number |
| 16 |
> referenced. All you get is someone's e-mail address. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Well, it can make sense if you're actually actively testing it and |
| 19 |
having it in tree offers convenience when doing so, but generally it |
| 20 |
should be reserved for cases where it really is actively being tested, |
| 21 |
and isn't simply sitting around. Then you actually have some kind of |
| 22 |
roadmap to general release. This is far less disruptive than sticking |
| 23 |
an ebuild in ~arch when all you know is that it builds. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I can't vouch for what is going on in this case. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives