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 CE9B513877A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:41:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B41CE0BAD; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:41:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f177.google.com (mail-ve0-f177.google.com [209.85.128.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57EF6E0B4F for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:41:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id i13so8259396veh.8 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=fySOxcXLsE1SSRupiRWnyeGX8cem8e+BepfuNVBtUgM=; b=whWQTTuljmvn0HnqwK+KRGCnxFeeb9D3ThTlBijPs3cNPZUc0VFLyUMpLf2BD4/JT4 M6/qOb3p2Urja/PebobbEMI/3j22oH50+Hp7u0i67zrgIO6Iql766cEJMuA/SO1UaX7b /FgrdO8K60rHdkEzttVEryoeAjrUhYd5Z1PPjpnu3IEtRIu7AwoYC2eQWYFue1AgAIE3 tKp8QFcDx0/7aNbPhB76pYcPIfvwSgRNR3RxbiIgy4R9nSwebrr1QvhU4WkdqlQl13/Q v/Jl4D6PAoe4dTeD5r8SE7fS6M0c0K/1QFNb888HDa57CrKfspwCkTX5OqAVjR7ythCe MJjA== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.188.199 with SMTP id gc7mr35358789vec.4.1404146459454; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140630181345.702381e2@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> References: <20140630040153.GA668@linux1> <53B1809F.9070807@gentoo.org> <20140630173654.0c70c367@pomiot.lan> <53B184E3.5040902@gentoo.org> <20140630181345.702381e2@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:40:59 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sE465swiSXHVvhaawqcGa8w3YD0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] package.mask vs ~arch From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 5c0b6330-b783-41d3-92ad-8dbb5925e208 X-Archives-Hash: 871fde48e1f08dd7df830e4837d00862 On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and >> it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be >> quite a lot at this point. :D > > Which is great, because then you have an actual test result, whereas > before you had nothing but a stupid mask. > > And lots of people are suddenly very much interested in getting any and > all bugs fixed in the new ebuild, whereas before you only had the stupid > mask. This subjects a lot of users to unnecessary inconvenience. Testing is a necessary inconvenience. Anybody who uses ~arch should be prepared for things to sometimes break. However, foisting completely alpha stuff on users that the maintainer simply hasn't gotten a chance to test yet seems excessive. I'm perfectly fine with the suggestion of requiring a bug reference when masking for testing. I think that adds value. I just don't think that giving the maintainers only the options of introducing untested packages directly to ~arch or not putting them in the tree at all is an unnecessary dichotomy. Why tie our own hands? Again, by all means lets require bug references and consider a masks in the absence of activity a QA issue. I'm less concerned with the actual duration and more with the level of activity. If it takes six months of hard work to get something into the tree, that isn't a problem, but six months of just rusting is a separate matter. Rich