| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:12 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Also, those masks are rarely short-term in practice, because well, see |
| 3 |
> this thread. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Is there any evidence to support this statement? You only notice |
| 6 |
masks when they're a problem, and these kinds of masks tend to be a |
| 7 |
problem only if they're long-term. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I certainly have no issues with avoiding masks for testing long-term, |
| 10 |
unless it is for something like an upstream beta series of releases |
| 11 |
(but I'd call that masking for beta, not testing). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Developer overlays are widely used. So yes, ~arch users will be testing |
| 14 |
> it, probably even arch users. It also limits the potential damage for |
| 15 |
> the user, because he can very easily toss out the crap by just |
| 16 |
> removing/masking the whole overlay instead of going on adventure reading |
| 17 |
> broken portage output. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If I want three users following a bug to test something, it is far |
| 21 |
easier to tell them to just unmask it than to tell them to go install |
| 22 |
my developer overlay. Also, right now you can't easily pull in just |
| 23 |
one package from an overlay, so they get the benefit of installing |
| 24 |
whatever else is in my overlay. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
And as I stated previously creating an overlay for one package is |
| 27 |
unnecessary work. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm not saying that we should be leaving stuff in the tree for six |
| 30 |
months for "testing" - just that there are cases where it can be |
| 31 |
convenient to have a short-term mask. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives