Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask

[Iain Buchanan]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers<jer@g.o>  wrote:
>
>> Please people,
>>
>>
>>     if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
>
> Um... no?  One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
> temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and then unleashed
> on the general population.

I think there's "testing" and "testing", and we're getting confused 
between the two :)

The testing cycle with packages that you know will badly break 
something, usually involves test, patch, test, patch, etc. During which 
the package is masked for good reason (the reason specified in 
package.mask) and certain users may unmask for whatever reason (helping 
to test, etc).

Then once you're happy to unleash it on ~arch, it still requires some 
amount of testing, but generally isn't "may delete all your data" testing.

>  It's not like we're putting masked stuff in
> the tree with the hope that someone will find it and try it out.  You
> mask a package, ask the user or whoever to test it, and unmask it when
> it's ready.  We don't just throw untested stuff into the tree when we
> suspect problems with it. ~arch is not a playground.  Already one of
> the major complaints we see against Gentoo time and time again is that
> it breaks too often and the maintenance burden is too high.  Why would
> we want to exacerbate that?

But this isn't a complaint against ~arch surely?  The general feeling I 
get from gentoo-user when someone complains about an ~arch "production 
box" or "remote system" that broke, is "well, what did you expect from 
~arch?"

> We don't /want/ ~arch systems to get "automatically widely exposed to
> the stuff we're intending to get tested".

No, not "delete all your data" testing, but yes you do want it exposed 
to "may still be slightly quirky" testing.

>  That's the whole point of
> masking it!  We want it tested by a few people before we expose it to
> the unwashed masses.

I would assume the unwashed masses are arch, not ~arch.  If you're 
installing ~arch:

"~arch keyword means that the application is not tested sufficiently to 
be put in the stable branch" [1]

"We recommend that you only use the stable branch. However, if you don't 
care about stability this much..." [1]

"The testing branch is exactly what it says - Testing. If a package is 
in testing, it means that the developers feel that it is functional but 
has not been thoroughly tested. You could very well be the first to 
discover a bug in the package in which case you could file a bugreport 
to let the developers know about it.
Beware though, you might notice stability issues, imperfect package 
handling (for instance wrong/missing dependencies), too frequent updates 
(resulting in lots of building) or broken packages. If you do not know 
how Gentoo works and how to solve problems, we recommend that you stick 
with the stable and tested branch." [1]

> So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just
> as it always has been.  Sorry.

All IMHO from a user point of view, of course.

[1] Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/

cya,
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

fenderberg, n.:
	The large glacial deposits that form on the insides
	of car fenders during snowstorms.
		-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends