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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-38397-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1N6pdE-0001Yh-KE
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:03:24 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 997F7E0B13;
Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:03:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.120])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9CAE0B13
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:03:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from linux1.localdomain ([76.183.49.63])
by cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com with ESMTP
id <20091107180323132.GDLV6968@cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com>;
Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:03:23 +0000
Received: by linux1.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 93BF143C03; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:03:22 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:03:22 -0600
From: William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Cc: qa@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA: package.mask policies
Message-ID: <20091107180322.GA23301@linux1>
Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, qa@gentoo.org
References: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Archives-Salt: 5a549315-f528-4346-9526-51036503d0f0
X-Archives-Hash: 26e9cf4da5d99e076f5374cccf6074e1
--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
I'm not QA, but I'll go ahead and add my comments to this also.
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Tom???? Chv??tal wrote:
> * 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 b=
e=20
> masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable).
=20
Agreed. If it works and does not cause issues for users or degrade
their experience, it should be in ~arch, not in p.mask.
> Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still relevant =
(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.
=20
Definitely. If a newer version of a package is stable, or in
~arch for that matter, why do we still have the old version in the tree
and masked while the newer version is unmasked?
> * Masking live...
> Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask. KEYWORDS=3D"".=
=20
> Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note, in overlays do wha=
t=20
> ever you want, since it does not polute the main mask from g-x86).
=20
True. If we mask live ebuilds with KEYWORDS=3D"", there isn't a reason
to put them in p.mask that I can think of.
> * Masking stable releases...
> Here i found most interesting stuff around (for example mask for testing =
=66rom=20
> 2006, yeah not ~ material after 3 years?! :P)
> There should be policy defined that you can add the new release under p.m=
ask if=20
> you see it fit, but the mask can stay only for 6 months (less/more,=20
> suggestions?) and then it must be unmasked, or have really high activity =
on=20
> tracker bug and good reasoning (mask for ruby-1.9 and so on).
=20
Off the top of my head, I think this falls under category 1 above as
well. If a new release of a package and everything that uses the new
package can be installed in a way that does not degrade the user's
experience if they want to use the older release, it doesn't need to be
in p.mask. In general, I don't think a new release of a package should
be added to p.mask unless it fits category 1 above.
Things that have been "masked for testing" for years need to have
a decision made about them -- keep them in the tree and unmask them or
remove them.
--=20
William Hubbs
gentoo accessibility team lead
williamh@gentoo.org
--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkr1tmoACgkQblQW9DDEZTh2GwCfSd0N8Lp/EXciBC623aq43pan
CiMAnAhTbOzGJNn2qOPLXEZET2VRzoDH
=HXIm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp--