On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:25:17 -0700 Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I agree that it would be nice to see more > people using test and collision-protect I don't think its something we > should enable at this point in time till we have many packages working > correctly with the feature. It's a bit chicken-and-egg. While they're not default, they are a low priority to be fixed. However that said, I've been running with FEATURES=test (and collision-protect) pretty much since I joined (certainly all the time I've been a dev) and it doesn't cause a crippling amount of trouble - mainly because most packages do not include a test suite. > If however people feel that by enabling > it, that it'll make us actually fix these issues then I'd like to see > it move forward. That's my main motivation for suggesting it. I think packages should not be unmasked until they pass their test phase for the maintainer. They shouldn't go stable until they pass their test phase for the arch testers. > I'm just curious as to why this has come up suddenly Kevin? Well, it's not sudden for me - I've been thinking it should be the default for a long time, usually every time see a test failure that should have been caught by the maintainer and raise a bug for it. Have to raise the issue some time; there's no particular reason for raising it now, and there's certainly no hurry to change anything. A good time to do it would be when portage goes up a revision (to 2.2, or perhaps even when it goes to 2.1.1 if we think it won't be too disruptive). > p.s I hope all dev's run with test and collision-protect, I know I > know you don't but I can hope. IMO devs should be working with "collision-protect sandbox strict stricter test userpriv" but let's not get too excited ;) -- Kevin F. Quinn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
