Re: [gentoo-dev] Please follow keywording policy

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3184 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 21:00 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
> Please read what I've wrote above. I said "I receive a new ebuild", 
> wouldn't I?
> You can keep your straight face...

What?

That makes absolutely no sense, so I really can't say anything on it.

> As for ~arch and p.mask, please read again 
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4 
> under "Masked packages".

Alright.

"Package.mask is used to prevent merging of packages that are broken,
break something else, or badly need testing before going into ~ARCH
KEYWORDS in the tree."

I would say a package that you've not even tested for functionality
falls under "badly need testing before going into ~ARCH" pretty
squarely.

Now, let's look under the "~ARCH in KEYWORDS" on that same document.

"There is a difference between using package.mask and ~arch for ebuilds.
The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires testing."

The word ebuild is even in bold.

Did you even bother reading this before trying to use it to make a
point?

> Yeah, luck, that's for sure! I would be more careful before I would make 
> such implausible statements. I did worked in portage for about 5-6 
> months, you know, and I wasn't idling on IRC! What are the odds to keep 
> being lucky every time ?

Pretty high, apparently.

You are relying 100% on other people to do your testing for you.
Whether it is the upstream authors or the users of the package.

> This disscution is started to be both juvenile and counter-productive. I 
> regret that.

I'm not sure how, but if you're regretting your statements, perhaps you
should put more thought into them before shouting "Fire!" in a crowded
theatre.

> Btw, what is your position, being QA manager and all, regarding 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/reports.cgi?product=Gentoo+Linux&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A 
> ?

For one, you are now trying to point at *ME* for something?  I'm sorry,
but I don't have to justify myself to you.  I am doing my job properly.

Also, I have nothing to do with the QA project.  I am the QA Manager for
Release Engineering.

Perhaps you should spend all this energy testing your own packages,
rather than trying to point out where you think others are doing wrong
when you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, let's look at that graph.  I would be worried if the number of
bugs that were at REOPEN were growing that fast, but considering the
number of packages being added to the portage tree since October of
2003, I don't see that as being too odd.

> Isn't it one of the top QA's priorities to assure that all known bugs 
> are resolved? Or, as ciaranm's membership to mips, you don't do that 
> part of the QA?

Like I said, you really need to back off.  At this point, you're trying
to pick a fight with me simply because you have no retort.  I'm going to
request this one time from you.  Stop.

There is no need for you to stoop to such immature tactics, and it won't
be tolerated.

Thanks,

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]