Ryan Hill wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:

Please people,

    if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.

Um... no?  One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and then unleashed
on the general population.

I think there's "testing" and "testing", and we're getting confused between the two :)

The testing cycle with packages that you know will badly break something, usually involves test, patch, test, patch, etc. During which the package is masked for good reason (the reason specified in package.mask) and certain users may unmask for whatever reason (helping to test, etc).

Then once you're happy to unleash it on ~arch, it still requires some amount of testing, but generally isn't "may delete all your data" testing.

 It's not like we're putting masked stuff in
the tree with the hope that someone will find it and try it out.  You
mask a package, ask the user or whoever to test it, and unmask it when
it's ready.  We don't just throw untested stuff into the tree when we
suspect problems with it. ~arch is not a playground.  Already one of
the major complaints we see against Gentoo time and time again is that
it breaks too often and the maintenance burden is too high.  Why would
we want to exacerbate that?

But this isn't a complaint against ~arch surely? The general feeling I get from gentoo-user when someone complains about an ~arch "production box" or "remote system" that broke, is "well, what did you expect from ~arch?"

We don't /want/ ~arch systems to get "automatically widely exposed to
the stuff we're intending to get tested".

No, not "delete all your data" testing, but yes you do want it exposed to "may still be slightly quirky" testing.

 That's the whole point of
masking it!  We want it tested by a few people before we expose it to
the unwashed masses.

I would assume the unwashed masses are arch, not ~arch. If you're installing ~arch:

"~arch keyword means that the application is not tested sufficiently to be put in the stable branch" [1]

"We recommend that you only use the stable branch. However, if you don't care about stability this much..." [1]

"The testing branch is exactly what it says - Testing. If a package is in testing, it means that the developers feel that it is functional but has not been thoroughly tested. You could very well be the first to discover a bug in the package in which case you could file a bugreport to let the developers know about it. Beware though, you might notice stability issues, imperfect package handling (for instance wrong/missing dependencies), too frequent updates (resulting in lots of building) or broken packages. If you do not know how Gentoo works and how to solve problems, we recommend that you stick with the stable and tested branch." [1]

So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just
as it always has been.  Sorry.

All IMHO from a user point of view, of course.

[1] Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/

Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

fenderberg, n.:
        The large glacial deposits that form on the insides
        of car fenders during snowstorms.
                -- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends

Reply via email to