From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N775t-0006AV-TT for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:42:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AF90E0841; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:42:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01496E0841 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:42:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.35] (unknown [77.246.104.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406FB67B19 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:42:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA: package.mask policies From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org> References: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:41:08 +0300 Message-ID: <1257684068.8341.1349.camel@tablet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 30f0806c-9ab7-48c5-b36f-a5c7f405fd7c X-Archives-Hash: 5559cbfdc7fdb455bdd6cf99f8629a2e =D0=92 =D0=A1=D0=B1=D1=82, 07/11/2009 =D0=B2 18:24 +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1= Chv=C3=A1tal =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > * Masking beta... > This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break previous=20 > behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software should not= be=20 > masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable). God no! If we'll start to do this way we'll loose a way to test packages that are supposed to go stable. It was told many times that testing branch is for testing ebuilds, not for packages and if upstream conciders them beta mask them. Or do you want Gentoo to have upstream suggested _only for testers_ versions end in stable tree? > Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still relevan= t (why=20 > on earth we have masked 4.0.3_p20070403 version of screen when newer 4.= 3 is=20 > stable ;]) and remove the branch+mask when needed. Yup, such things happen, but this does not mean we should stop using package.mask for beta software. --=20 Peter.