| 1 |
On 11/24/08, b.n. <brullonulla@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, why? If you want to test 2.2 instead, you can do it. It's not |
| 3 |
> blocking you from anything. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Yes, before the change the only thing blocking portage 2.2 was ~arch. |
| 6 |
Now it requires the bigger tool, Thor's Hammer of Unmasking +5 (+15 |
| 7 |
against portage devs and other undead? ;) ). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> He wants users to test *more* a given version, and that in turn will |
| 10 |
> probably benefit us all. It's a psychological trick, maybe, but an |
| 11 |
> absolutely innocent one. In fact, once you know that, you *should* jump |
| 12 |
> the bandwagon and help test the previous version. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Let's think for a moment about the logic and psychology underlying |
| 15 |
this situation. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Why have these people upgraded to unstable portage 2.2 in the first |
| 18 |
place? Just to "test it out"? To show off ricing to the debian and |
| 19 |
ubuntu kids running their ancient stable stuff? No, it's the package |
| 20 |
manager for crying out loud! My guess is that most have packages |
| 21 |
explicitly requiring them to run the newer portage, packages like |
| 22 |
anything related to kde4. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Will such people help with testing of 2.1 on their normal system? No. |
| 25 |
So how many new testers did this actually acquire? And how much work |
| 26 |
was wasted unmasking the packages and ranting on mailing lists? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
My guess is zero new testers and a lot of time wasted with hundreds or |
| 29 |
thousands of people whipping out their text editors and unmasking the |
| 30 |
package, then going off ranting on mailing lists, forums and irc |
| 31 |
channels. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So, yes, I'd tend to agree with Mr McKinnon and Mr Jarausch on this |
| 34 |
issue. Something was bad in this execution of this "need more testers" |
| 35 |
-- regardless of the possible original good intentions. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
/semi-serious-rant |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Arttu V. |
Archives