| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> # Gen 2 Developer <someone@g.o> (`date`) |
| 6 |
>> # Masked for testing. |
| 7 |
>> >=rofl-cat/omgpkg-ver |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Please people, |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it. If you |
| 14 |
>> find that you cannot commit an ebuild because of badly keyworded |
| 15 |
>> dependencies, then drop the relevant keywords and file a bug report |
| 16 |
>> with a KEYWORDREQ. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Lest I forget, the exception being that a particular version should |
| 19 |
> never ever go stable, in which case the masking reason should still be |
| 20 |
> different. In that case you would still not mark it as "masked for |
| 21 |
> testing" - what I wanted to clarify is that the mask reason isn't valid |
| 22 |
> if you want stuff to get tested, as it prevents exactly that from |
| 23 |
> happening. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I would argue that overlays are a bigger barrier to testing than being |
| 26 |
"masked for testing" |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
At least they are exposed to the entire Gentoo population if they are |
| 29 |
p.masked in the tree. Additionally, there are use cases for p.masking |
| 30 |
for testing in the tree, especially if you have users testing it for |
| 31 |
you. There shouldn't be a limit to the amount of self-QA that we |
| 32 |
provide to "protect" the users, if so deemed necessary. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Just saying... |
| 35 |
-Jeremy |
Archives