On 31/10/2012 23:42, Peter Stuge wrote: > Can you clarify? Do you propose that developers carry out wild > experiments by committing things that probably don't work and > masking them?
Dirty experiments, no. Testing stuff that's almost ready, yes. If you run the tinderbox against dirty experiments, the time _I_ pour in to sort through the logs report bugs is wasted because they'll hit stupid hacks that fail to work. _If_ it's ready to be tested it is ready to be in package.mask and vice-versa, as it's expected to work *but has to be tested*. If it's not expected to work, why should I spend time on the tinderbox? > 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. You ask me to step off Arfrever, I'm telling you why I'm not. > 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. Blah blah blah blah. Seriously you can fix 2000000000000000000 packages _for your own toy reason_ but if you break the tree every three months by committing shit that is not tested, or is tested for a very peculiar corner case only, you're creating more trouble than you're worth. And that's, once again, not just my opinion. If it's not your opinion, I'd say we disagree and that's it. I won't try to convince you, please stop demanding that I bow to your opinion. > 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. See what I wrote above. If you don't understand _why_ I'm avoiding overlays with reason, then I'm seriously wasting my time responding to you. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
