1 |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:48:22 -0400 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> |
5 |
> wrote: |
6 |
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 |
7 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> >> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN |
10 |
> >> TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that |
11 |
> >> is it. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their |
14 |
> > changes to the tree should immediately hand in their toys and leave |
15 |
> > the project. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> What harm does it cause to commit an untested package in a masked |
18 |
> state to the tree? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Doing so violates no policy, and IMHO it shouldn't be considered a |
21 |
> policy violation either, especially if it makes life easier on anybody |
22 |
> who has actually volunteered to test it. |
23 |
|
24 |
"should" != "must"; that joke aside, while it's not punishable by |
25 |
policy (and shouldn't even be punished if it's not repeated behavior) |
26 |
we rather need to keep the package.mask file of a reasonable size. |
27 |
|
28 |
The goal of this file is to have an overview of what _is_ BROKEN; when |
29 |
you add a lot of UNSURE, its contents will diverge away from this goal. |
30 |
|
31 |
A test of a package to determine whether it appears to be working OK or |
32 |
whether it destructs your system isn't too much asked for; if it works |
33 |
it can then be ~arch tested, if it breaks you have a bug # for p.mask. |
34 |
|
35 |
If someone can't test it at all, why was it added in the first place? |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
With kind regards, |
39 |
|
40 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
41 |
Gentoo Developer |
42 |
|
43 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
44 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
45 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |