Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:44:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius <axs@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 30/06/14 03:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > Setting up an overlay for this and poking a stick at a few
> > developers to try it out could help as an intermediary test, to
> > ensure that you don't break every ~arch user in the progress.
> > Better than "all or nothing"...
> 
> Or i can just use the same stick to poke them about the p.masked
> version in the tree. :)
> 
> All of this just means, to me, that as long as the packages indeed are
> actively being pursued for testing, I think it's still fine to use
> package.mask.  However, if things aren't being actively tested (ie
> they've been forgotten about) then probably whomever added the mask
> should be pinged relentlessly about it until it's resolved one way or
> another.  At least, I would find it perfectly acceptable to being
> pinged on any mask I've left rotting in the tree.

+1 One could say that ensuring it is tested is part of the workflow;
and then I don't mean your own testing, but inviting others to do so.

- -- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTtEguAAoJEPWZc8roOL/QKKoIAI0KlFu28ri4KB7gAWJAQXe/
cgvNYy7Gy5kwbl9pagCSP9NhBO0VZ4LNRZIMY0OqOhv/fs9pM2+tdKOV3c/f+8mo
3PvE2zW6+U0NUDBeYDmSdRoCVuFecuZiLk9y8gciGLIipLVZ9jaIwW2N5l/jvT69
KZFLLRgoFvLeXFvg05LUbZgKlMsvpi3DJh0HWG2l0CCuGAw+vNSnFqviPyFWnVCP
mhZZuYh3Xwf9/yyrWwKHFY+JjlHD2aqCd1rO9q7Ght/Wbi1knzBt4PE+kgj7xTSo
7BVTEuskcAq4yU9wvmxUYKIyGGwnjmVD5L+fK+LcVnWp4A8zwQG6bk6opiSIFN0=
=R2Cc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----