| 1 |
On Sunday 04 September 2005 04:52 pm, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 21:59 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If it isn't fit to be marked stable, it shouldn't be out of |
| 4 |
> > package.mask. ~arch means "candidate for going stable after more |
| 5 |
> > testing", not "might work". |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Agreed, but we both know that it's just not how many devs work atm. |
| 8 |
> Perhaps that is a problem that also needs to be solved? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There's also the issue that many users are happy running ~arch packages, |
| 11 |
> but are reluctant to test masked packages (making it difficult to get |
| 12 |
> enough feedback to move the package to ~arch anyway). This is a bit of |
| 13 |
> a chicken and egg situation - one that the maintainer arch may provide a |
| 14 |
> new solution to. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
sounds like you suggest to trick ~arch users into testing "unripe" |
| 17 |
ebuilds/bumps/versions by sending it into ~arch to get the testing done while |
| 18 |
someone in a chroot would be much better equipped for doing the testing with? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Best regards, |
| 21 |
> Stu |
Archives