| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/30/14 22:15, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 |
| 4 |
>> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED |
| 7 |
>>> AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their |
| 10 |
>> changes to the tree should immediately hand in their toys and leave |
| 11 |
>> the project. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I usually avoid overlays (best way to make things hard to find), so when |
| 15 |
> there's stuff that upstream says is experimental (e.g. perl6/rakudo with |
| 16 |
> the MoarVM backend) I have no issue with adding it as un-keyworded |
| 17 |
> ebuilds to the tree. That way it's easy to test, and once there's a bit |
| 18 |
> more confidence that it works well enough it's trivial to keyword. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If the goal is to reduce clutter in the profiles then this could be a |
| 22 |
good alternative. Nothing would prevent a maintainer from sticking a |
| 23 |
comment in the ebuild as well. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Hate to derail this, but another option would be to migrate |
| 26 |
package.mask to a directory (eventually) and manage masks by project |
| 27 |
or by date. Projects could create standing files when needed, and |
| 28 |
misc masks would go into a file named by year/quarter. Then anybody |
| 29 |
looking in the directory can spot projects that are dead, or files |
| 30 |
which are old. Either would be easier to clean up. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Obviously restructuring the profiles entirely as has been suggested |
| 33 |
will help, though not for masks like these. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives