Archives
Archives
| From: | Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch | ||
| Date: | Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:16:15 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20140630161555.15ab3403@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch by Rich Freeman |
||
| 1 | On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 |
| 2 | Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 | |
| 4 | > Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED |
| 5 | > AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that is it. |
| 6 | |
| 7 | Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their |
| 8 | changes to the tree should immediately hand in their toys and leave |
| 9 | the project. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | jer |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch | Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch | Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch | Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> |