Re: [gentoo-dev] Please follow keywording policy

[Alin Nastac <mrness@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2764 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 10:36 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
>  
>
>>Not every time when I receive a new ebuild submittion, I also test that 
>>package because this is not always possible. Usually, I add the new 
>>ebuild with ~x86 and let testing to the user who request that. It may 
>>not be the orthodox way, but the risk of breaking something else in the 
>>process is 0 (a new ebuild means no other ebuilds depends on it).
>>    
>>
>
>Add it as ~arch and p.mask it, or get more people to test it *while it
>is still in bugzilla* until you are pretty sure that it works, *then*
>add it.
>
>If an ebuild has a DEPEND on >=foo-1.0 and you add foo-1.2, then it
>*will* be pulled in as a dependency, so you can't possibly say that
>nothing depends on it and be serious.
>
>  
>
Please read what I've wrote above. I said "I receive a new ebuild", 
wouldn't I?
You can keep your straight face...

As for ~arch and p.mask, please read again 
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=3&chap=1#doc_chap4 
under "Masked packages".

>>Users don't usually come to me and say "that ebuild works for me". I 
>>take silence as a sign that everything works. I am sure I'm not the only 
>>one doing that.
>>    
>>
>
>No.  Everyone else is making sure the ebuild works before adding it.
>The truth is that you've just been lucky, so far.
>
>  
>
Yeah, luck, that's for sure! I would be more careful before I would make 
such implausible statements. I did worked in portage for about 5-6 
months, you know, and I wasn't idling on IRC! What are the odds to keep 
being lucky every time ?

>>I ask arches to mark a new ebuild as stable because a know bug have been 
>>solved or because the old stable version breaks something else.
>>    
>>
>
>Great.  Don't start a hissy fit on -dev when they don't mark it stable
>because they can't test it.  Especially when you haven't made a good
>effort to contact them to resolve the problem.  Airing your dirty
>laundry out in public just makes you look white trash... ;]  This isn't
>Jerry Springer.  We don't need to know who your baby's daddy is.  A
>simple email to the mips team could have kept all of this from even
>being an issue.
>
>  
>
I did apologized to mips team, remember? Again, I apologies for my 
overreaction. I should have waited for a month...

This disscution is started to be both juvenile and counter-productive. I 
regret that.

Btw, what is your position, being QA manager and all, regarding 
http://bugs.gentoo.org/reports.cgi?product=Gentoo+Linux&datasets=NEW%3A&datasets=ASSIGNED%3A&datasets=REOPENED%3A 
?
Isn't it one of the top QA's priorities to assure that all known bugs 
are resolved? Or, as ciaranm's membership to mips, you don't do that 
part of the QA?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]