| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 21:00 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 2 |
> Please read what I've wrote above. I said "I receive a new ebuild", |
| 3 |
> wouldn't I? |
| 4 |
> You can keep your straight face... |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
What? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That makes absolutely no sense, so I really can't say anything on it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> As for ~arch and p.mask, please read again |
| 11 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4 |
| 12 |
> under "Masked packages". |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Alright. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
"Package.mask is used to prevent merging of packages that are broken, |
| 17 |
break something else, or badly need testing before going into ~ARCH |
| 18 |
KEYWORDS in the tree." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I would say a package that you've not even tested for functionality |
| 21 |
falls under "badly need testing before going into ~ARCH" pretty |
| 22 |
squarely. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Now, let's look under the "~ARCH in KEYWORDS" on that same document. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
"There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for ebuilds. |
| 27 |
The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing." |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The word ebuild is even in bold. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Did you even bother reading this before trying to use it to make a |
| 32 |
point? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> Yeah, luck, that's for sure! I would be more careful before I would make |
| 35 |
> such implausible statements. I did worked in portage for about 5-6 |
| 36 |
> months, you know, and I wasn't idling on IRC! What are the odds to keep |
| 37 |
> being lucky every time ? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Pretty high, apparently. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
You are relying 100% on other people to do your testing for you. |
| 42 |
Whether it is the upstream authors or the users of the package. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> This disscution is started to be both juvenile and counter-productive. I |
| 45 |
> regret that. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I'm not sure how, but if you're regretting your statements, perhaps you |
| 48 |
should put more thought into them before shouting "Fire!" in a crowded |
| 49 |
theatre. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> Btw, what is your position, being QA manager and all, regarding |
| 52 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/reports.cgi?product=Gentoo+Linux&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A |
| 53 |
> ? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
For one, you are now trying to point at *ME* for something? I'm sorry, |
| 56 |
but I don't have to justify myself to you. I am doing my job properly. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Also, I have nothing to do with the QA project. I am the QA Manager for |
| 59 |
Release Engineering. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Perhaps you should spend all this energy testing your own packages, |
| 62 |
rather than trying to point out where you think others are doing wrong |
| 63 |
when you don't know what you're talking about. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Also, let's look at that graph. I would be worried if the number of |
| 66 |
bugs that were at REOPEN were growing that fast, but considering the |
| 67 |
number of packages being added to the portage tree since October of |
| 68 |
2003, I don't see that as being too odd. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
> Isn't it one of the top QA's priorities to assure that all known bugs |
| 71 |
> are resolved? Or, as ciaranm's membership to mips, you don't do that |
| 72 |
> part of the QA? |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Like I said, you really need to back off. At this point, you're trying |
| 75 |
to pick a fight with me simply because you have no retort. I'm going to |
| 76 |
request this one time from you. Stop. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
There is no need for you to stoop to such immature tactics, and it won't |
| 79 |
be tolerated. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Thanks, |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
-- |
| 84 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 85 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 86 |
Games - Developer |
| 87 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives