Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Greg KH <gregkh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 21:08:13
Message-Id: 20140705210804.GA4133@kroah.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch by Jeroen Roovers
1 On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:15:55PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
2 > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
3 > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED
6 > > AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it.
7 >
8 > Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their
9 > changes to the tree should immediately hand in their toys and leave
10 > the project.
11
12 What toys? Were we given some when we became developers? If I had some
13 I'd send mine back in, but as I don't, I'll keep committing stable
14 kernel ebuilds that I never test as no one seems to be complaining...
15
16 greg "never make absolute statements" k-h

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch hasufell <hasufell@g.o>