From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF391393DD for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 986DEE0996; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:01:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com (mail-oa0-f54.google.com [209.85.219.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83AC6E0964 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:01:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id eb12so8136912oac.41 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:01:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=YKGP5lj5PepNkRl7nOKpDmbeyevOXtwfgV1qdhMtexQ=; b=zWVdf3z74vcoV+iTGrYVNRWlRwGt2jR0UQewpatxBtLXvV2ypUPb9JcZT+emTZ/sjN +Vh+SgoEUV2etm3yjReqPpMvOPQh1y9RuniugaoXdqlOBjDMP6HWNV5AGRoCXzRqLTE7 XuRPmsWyIUMrVR5tZd+GhPjyNfYBpXcQf0NNpPOJWYjRu4c4vrPubuYjTIE7Ho/XjxB7 dlYglRqRORoxxUlKCPSs9KWYNCH+bL6pZ9/U5Fvy3/vTGFpKvyN+GBbuAI4oibDC1cZp xNn1/KNAXr42O1r58jX2zXpyMnbi7h1C623WKtTLBvN/nuwF1NrSirbVaBXIYCblP6Q7 kfKA== X-Received: by 10.60.133.233 with SMTP id pf9mr19402654oeb.30.1404100916514; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:01:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm66957871oed.1.2014.06.29.21.01.54 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Jun 2014 21:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 986 invoked by uid 1000); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 04:01:53 -0000 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 23:01:53 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch Message-ID: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: 6655ee27-65ab-4da7-8444-e59d1ab7ee13 X-Archives-Hash: 6a7558853e8915566621f9c8572516ce --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All, I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package, but I am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread. On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote: > > This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then > > it can as well just land in ~arch. >=20 > A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch. > Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package, > or any aspect of the package? Do we want it to break completely for > ~arch? In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and > then it still isn't getting tested. I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is not a second stable branch. > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm > not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing > by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested > at all. The concern with this argument is the definition of rudimentary testing is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible configurations. I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that is where ~arch can help out. In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the fallout can be. *snip* > I guess the question is, what exactly are we trying to fix? Even if > occasionally a maintainer drops the ball and leaves something masked > for a year, how is that different from a maintainer dropping the ball > and not adding a new release to the main tree for a year? Would we be > better off if Docker 1 wasn't in the tree at all? If it happened to > have a known issue would ~arch users be better off if some other dev > came along and helpfully added it to the tree unmasked no realizing > that somebody else was already working on it? Take a look at profiles/package.mask. You will see many packages in there with the description, "masked for testing" on their masks, with no bug references, that have been there for multiple years. My view is we should either get those masks resolved or boot the affected packages/versions out of the tree. If they haven't received rudimentary testing by now, it is pretty obvious that no one cares about them. William --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlOw4TEACgkQblQW9DDEZTh6YwCguneAbpSme6T0CKQHewYWKv+P C9MAn2BC4Wnx1hPwit7HgMsrf3nre0TM =FyRI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --mP3DRpeJDSE+ciuQ--