1 |
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 23:01 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> All, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package, but I |
5 |
> am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
8 |
> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
9 |
> > > This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then |
10 |
> > > it can as well just land in ~arch. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch. |
13 |
> > Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package, |
14 |
> > or any aspect of the package? Do we want it to break completely for |
15 |
> > ~arch? In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and |
16 |
> > then it still isn't getting tested. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch |
19 |
> without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the |
20 |
> understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they |
21 |
> are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is |
22 |
> not a second stable branch. |
23 |
|
24 |
I realize that not everybody agrees with me, but I see ~arch as a |
25 |
"semi-stable" branch - an internally consistent branch for people who |
26 |
don't feel like maintaining a horrific mess of keywords and masks in |
27 |
their /etc/portage and don't want to wait weeks/months for bugfixes to |
28 |
their favorite ebuilds to be marked stable by overworked arch teams, and |
29 |
who don't mind seeing an occasional build failure or crash as a |
30 |
consequence of standing closer to the bleeding edge. |
31 |
|
32 |
In my view, experimental work not ready for general exposure should be |
33 |
kept in overlays and/or the main tree's package.mask, depending on how |
34 |
the particular project's workflow is organized. |
35 |
|
36 |
> > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm |
37 |
> > not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages |
38 |
> > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing |
39 |
> > by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that |
40 |
> > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested |
41 |
> > at all. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> The concern with this argument is the definition of rudimentary testing |
44 |
> is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible |
45 |
> configurations. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that |
48 |
> is where ~arch can help out. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users |
51 |
> should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the |
52 |
> fallout can be. |
53 |
|
54 |
At any given stability level, a system-critical library ideally ought to |
55 |
be better-tested than, say, a game or a media player. In practice, this |
56 |
sometimes doesn't happen, because some system-critical library |
57 |
maintainers don't care about ~arch users and dump experimental code in |
58 |
their laps, and in my view that's a bad thing because it encourages |
59 |
users to come up with ad-hoc mixed arch/~arch setups which have *never* |
60 |
been tested by any developer. |