Re: [gentoo-dev] Disturbing state of arch testing in Gentoo

[John Helmert III]

On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 08:03:16PM +0100, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> On domenica 6 novembre 2022 14:27:40 CET John Helmert III wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, there's ONE person relying completely on a
> > proprietary arch testing system.
> >
> > Ago, could you comment on this? What's blocking you from open sourcing
> > your software?
>
> Hi,
>
> I already answered in the previous post:
>
> "I still use getatoms.py to fetch 'doable' stablereqs (it is on my todo
> to switch to nattka). And I have a script the **simply** does emerge over the list of
> the packages. There is nothing obscure in it."
>
> I'm working in arch testing since 2009. In the past I relied on scripts done by someone else
> and every time there was an issue I got no response.

And so you force that frustration on everyone else? Why?

> At a certain point I decided to make my own script in language I know so I can edit it when
> is needed.

None of this blocks you from open sourcing it. Is your reason for not
open-sourcing your automation really that "There is nothing obscure in
it"?

You also ignored my other question:

"I'll also point out that you removed the Github repository that you
used to tell people to report issues with your CI at, while there were
several outstanding issues. Why?"

> Since few years we allow self stabilization from maintainer. Do we know how and with
> what they test? No because it is not required.
> The requirement for test is that the package you are testing works as expected.
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64_Arch_Testers#Arch_tester.27s_policy[1]
>
> Agostino
>
> --------
> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64_Arch_Testers#Arch_tester.27s_policy