| 1 |
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and |
| 6 |
>> it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be |
| 7 |
>> quite a lot at this point. :D |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Which is great, because then you have an actual test result, whereas |
| 10 |
> before you had nothing but a stupid mask. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> And lots of people are suddenly very much interested in getting any and |
| 13 |
> all bugs fixed in the new ebuild, whereas before you only had the stupid |
| 14 |
> mask. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This subjects a lot of users to unnecessary inconvenience. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Testing is a necessary inconvenience. Anybody who uses ~arch should |
| 19 |
be prepared for things to sometimes break. However, foisting |
| 20 |
completely alpha stuff on users that the maintainer simply hasn't |
| 21 |
gotten a chance to test yet seems excessive. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'm perfectly fine with the suggestion of requiring a bug reference |
| 24 |
when masking for testing. I think that adds value. I just don't |
| 25 |
think that giving the maintainers only the options of introducing |
| 26 |
untested packages directly to ~arch or not putting them in the tree at |
| 27 |
all is an unnecessary dichotomy. Why tie our own hands? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Again, by all means lets require bug references and consider a masks |
| 30 |
in the absence of activity a QA issue. I'm less concerned with the |
| 31 |
actual duration and more with the level of activity. If it takes six |
| 32 |
months of hard work to get something into the tree, that isn't a |
| 33 |
problem, but six months of just rusting is a separate matter. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives