1 |
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> A test of a package to determine whether it appears to be working OK or |
4 |
> whether it destructs your system isn't too much asked for; if it works |
5 |
> it can then be ~arch tested, if it breaks you have a bug # for p.mask. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> If someone can't test it at all, why was it added in the first place? |
8 |
|
9 |
So that it can be tested? Maybe the maintainer doesn't have the |
10 |
ability to test the package (might require special hardware). Maybe |
11 |
the maintainer doesn't have the time to test it right away, but wants |
12 |
to allow others to do so (especially if others show an interest). |
13 |
|
14 |
In my example of mythtv, testing might require first updating all the |
15 |
front-ends to be current and ensure that nothing breaks (it might only |
16 |
be emerge --sync'ed monthly). Then a window has to exist where |
17 |
nothing will be recorded. Then everything gets brought down and |
18 |
backed up (not a big deal, but nobody is watching TV for a while). |
19 |
Then you update everything and see if it works, perhaps having to |
20 |
tweak things a bit. Then you do the quick tests (record shows, play |
21 |
things back, check the web front end). Then you leave it alone for a |
22 |
day and see if anybody screams - best not to do this if you'll be |
23 |
really busy the next day. |
24 |
|
25 |
If people are clamoring for an update, it may be more productive to |
26 |
just let them have it with a disclaimer about quality, rather than |
27 |
just putting them off for a week or two. |
28 |
|
29 |
Sure, I can set up yet another overlay, which will be empty 99% of the |
30 |
time. But, what is the harm in just using a mask? I've yet to leave |
31 |
one sitting around for years (well, not for testing at least). |
32 |
|
33 |
Rich |