Hi all, I'm not QA, but I'll go ahead and add my comments to this also.
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Tom???? Chv??tal wrote: > * Masking beta... > This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break previous > behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software should not be > masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable). Agreed. If it works and does not cause issues for users or degrade their experience, it should be in ~arch, not in p.mask. > Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still relevant (why > on earth we have masked 4.0.3_p20070403 version of screen when newer 4.3 is > stable ;]) and remove the branch+mask when needed. Definitely. If a newer version of a package is stable, or in ~arch for that matter, why do we still have the old version in the tree and masked while the newer version is unmasked? > * Masking live... > Heck no. This is not proper usage. Just use keywords mask. KEYWORDS="". > Problem solved and the package.mask is smaller. (Note, in overlays do what > ever you want, since it does not polute the main mask from g-x86). True. If we mask live ebuilds with KEYWORDS="", there isn't a reason to put them in p.mask that I can think of. > * Masking stable releases... > Here i found most interesting stuff around (for example mask for testing from > 2006, yeah not ~ material after 3 years?! :P) > There should be policy defined that you can add the new release under p.mask > if > you see it fit, but the mask can stay only for 6 months (less/more, > suggestions?) and then it must be unmasked, or have really high activity on > tracker bug and good reasoning (mask for ruby-1.9 and so on). Off the top of my head, I think this falls under category 1 above as well. If a new release of a package and everything that uses the new package can be installed in a way that does not degrade the user's experience if they want to use the older release, it doesn't need to be in p.mask. In general, I don't think a new release of a package should be added to p.mask unless it fits category 1 above. Things that have been "masked for testing" for years need to have a decision made about them -- keep them in the tree and unmask them or remove them. -- William Hubbs gentoo accessibility team lead willi...@gentoo.org
pgpOXpVFPLLey.pgp
Description: PGP signature
