Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > > Um, so how come an overlay isn't the obvious method for testing, > > before putting things in the main tree? What other method is *more* > > convenient for testing? > > package.mask
Can you clarify? Do you propose that developers carry out wild experiments by committing things that probably don't work and masking them? I don't know, that seems like it will create a pretty dirty tree history, something I would want to avoid as far as possible. Overlays seem like a perfect gateway to me. > > Diego, I would like to ask you to step off Arfrever. > > And I would like that developers didn't try to workaround Devrel's > and QA's shared choices. I don't understand. The topic was how your tinderbox could be even more useful for Gentoo, but you make personal remarks and bring up devrel and QA? That's confusing. > > Try for a second to appreciate the time he has contributed and from > > the sound of it continues to contribute, even if he does not use the > > methods that you would have made him use if you were paying his > > salary. > > Honestly, from my point of view (and I doubt it's only mine given that > he got quite a list of people scorned) he contributed mostly headaches. I guess that if you review the testing of the couple of hundred Python packages that he mentioned you would find one or two valuable items. > > Especially snapping back at him with some unrelated bull personal > > remark when he points out what seems to me to be a very legitimate > > shortcoming of your darling baby is not especially excellent. > > It's not a shortcoming as much as an intentional design. So thank > you very, much stop second guessing me. I'm sure you're open to the idea that your design can be made even more useful, if only for others, in ways you didn't think of yourself. //Peter
