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 B025213877A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:05:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 145BFE0841; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com (mail-ve0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2935EE0384 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 14:04:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id jx11so7134097veb.20 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:04:54 -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=Dsj2Wpg1uEUceDBwj36eQJZZujG+IF+anKwYXE4ecWc=; b=D9jk8lF78WOeujnzzWlSSrw+LjR6HR3ODR06cAAfVhRPUXb1NLkqKJdcfk+bdVQzAn MSNhZ7m5bEXbflocKMveSnE0e3qypGA23lQtTuVseAXdG635NhWtscgLPx82SsW65HWF /yr/t098RyqUl6VaVA4t8cSmFVAZeHy3zz/rLwd2eqOUdeJdWE85tTQAJ5P/4dqqrKOf 6t66BOlagq0H75Qa7Oa+XRpBjYYLfJHd5wJJ96/tmoSlZxlmGf916iNlLNStPk34Zpxu BGM7d7OYXMrldKha2HRfnlP0dY6ZtnT4fPvHqR/bQJlEKWGtbx+XXxQYOqBcHxND5u3W QEMw== 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 10.52.101.168 with SMTP id fh8mr27168454vdb.34.1404050694410; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:04:54 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:04:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53B0084D.1080107@gentoo.org> References: <20140629025822.GB22414@kroah.com> <20140629051736.0173fd6b@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140629034608.GA26508@kroah.com> <53AFFA20.1060107@gentoo.org> <53B00293.8080201@gentoo.org> <53B0084D.1080107@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 10:04:54 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: j5cQarbqKIW8CAS1eUGg8wnrDXU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason? From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 0c07b0a9-aa0c-4618-98e6-056c6924269d X-Archives-Hash: e042fc2cdbae4a814d66d1ebcae180e7 On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote: > This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then > it can as well just land in ~arch. A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch. Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package, or any aspect of the package? Do we want it to break completely for ~arch? In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and then it still isn't getting tested. I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested at all. Sure, it could go into an overlay, but for that matter so could all of ~arch. I guess the question is, what exactly are we trying to fix? Even if occasionally a maintainer drops the ball and leaves something masked for a year, how is that different from a maintainer dropping the ball and not adding a new release to the main tree for a year? Would we be better off if Docker 1 wasn't in the tree at all? If it happened to have a known issue would ~arch users be better off if some other dev came along and helpfully added it to the tree unmasked no realizing that somebody else was already working on it? Rich