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 1N7B4k-0001X4-2L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:57:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10A3EE0940; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:57:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E29E097A for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:57:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA8GvB88018927 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:57:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:57:10 +0100 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA: package.mask policies Message-ID: <20091108175710.49302d71@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org> References: <200911071824.16651.scarabeus@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.3 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: c6a7d141-9d2b-4f2b-8030-d20e6c9344c8 X-Archives-Hash: 3a3774e97d6d6ae8f809c3fe1c69cd1c On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:24:10 +0100 Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > * Masking beta... > This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break > previous behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software > should not be masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable). > Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still > relevant (why on earth we have masked 4.0.3_p20070403 version of > screen when newer 4.3 is stable ;]) and remove the branch+mask when > needed. I agree with your criticism (i.e. that the mask should not be there, especially not for "testing" as what the mask does is *prevent* testing instead of enabling it), but must note that your version sorting algorithm appears to be flawed: pkg-vX_pY (for patch level) is always greater than pkg-vX. Regards, jer