Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: www-client/phantomjs and dev-ruby/poltergeist

[Kent Fredric <kentnl@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2069 bytes --]

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 07:28:00 +0200
Hans de Graaff <graaff@gentoo.org> wrote:

> What kind of timeframe do you propose?
> 
> > 1.5 Months from "We're not working on this" to "its dead jim, kill
> > it from orbit"
> > is a bit fast for anything entrenched.  
> 
> The problems were there a lot longer so for me at least it still feels
> slow. The fact that Chromium is now an alternative finally made it
> easier to mask this, but really we should have masked this months ago.
> If not for security reasons than for all the QA violations such as
> tons of bundled code.
> 
> > Chromium 59 is also, similarly, quite new.  
> 
> It has hit stable upstream so we should see stable versions in Gentoo
> soon, I expect.

I'm sort of hoping that we can delay at least until it becomes viable
to use newer stuff on travis.

That way when all the underlying ecosystem things are updated to work
with chromium-headless, and it becomes viable to actually test this in
a consistent way the same way on every target, the need to maintain
phantomjs goes away.

But at this time, the context that matters is:

Seeing the last-riting was the *first* indication I received that any
changes were being done that I needed to pay attention to.

So making sure everything is up-to-scratch on top of all the other
stuff I have to do Gentoo side ( *cough* bug 613764 ) just means I
haven't had any of the sort of time I need to to respond to this that
quickly.

I'm fine with it living in pmask as long as its "insecure, but usable".

Just 30 days to overhaul things on top of other work is a serious
problem for anyone with time issues already.

But as to how long is a reasonable time frame before tree-cleaning, I
hope other responders can give a better depiction of this.

( I only consider my own use of this "amateur" at best right now, and
even with such a low usage I have a hard time working out what I need
to do to stay current, I'd hate to know what its like for people
relying on this in their production testing toolchain :/ )


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]