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 8883D13877A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:36:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C3FDE0B49; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:36:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B675E0B22 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (bolobolo1.torservers.net [96.47.226.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2BB3340037 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53AFFA20.1060107@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 11:36:00 +0000 From: hasufell 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason? References: <20140629025822.GB22414@kroah.com> <20140629051736.0173fd6b@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140629034608.GA26508@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20140629034608.GA26508@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 89dadf72-7988-4e44-bcfa-7c16ef591486 X-Archives-Hash: d4665d89d7090c844dc4c5abb5eae35c Greg KH: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 >> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >>> Hi Markos, >>> >>> I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my >>> boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and >>> Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment: >>> >>> # Markos Chandras (03 May 2014) >>> # Masked for further testing >> >> Oh, that good old "masked for testing", which actually never works. > > Exactly. > Yes, people should stop abusing package.mask for testing purposes. If someone has tested something or it is already known to be broken, then a mask is reasonable. If something is that fragile that you want to add it to the tree masked, maybe it isn't even ready for it yet. Fun-stuff, alpha-software and other broken things have a good place in overlays. That said, we should probably set up a policy to get this into peoples heads: don't mask anything without a bug reference. Sure... there are always exceptions. That's why we would call it a policy. If gentoo users run ~arch they have to accept the fact of downgrades, manual intervention etc. That's what ~arch is for and I am using it exactly like that. Doing the opposite * increases the workload, because we are effectively running 3 branches * decreases the amount of testing for that time period, because... it's masked * causes confusion (see this thread) * decreases the quality of our stable branch, because people suddenly expect the unstable branch to be ...stable and don't bother with filing stabilization requests anymore * makes the whole testing/stabilization iteration actually slower, possibly even causing unnecessary exposures to security issues