On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jeroen Roovers <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 > Ian Stakenvicius <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and >> it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be >> quite a lot at this point. :D > > Which is great, because then you have an actual test result, whereas > before you had nothing but a stupid mask. > > And lots of people are suddenly very much interested in getting any and > all bugs fixed in the new ebuild, whereas before you only had the stupid > mask.
This subjects a lot of users to unnecessary inconvenience. Testing is a necessary inconvenience. Anybody who uses ~arch should be prepared for things to sometimes break. However, foisting completely alpha stuff on users that the maintainer simply hasn't gotten a chance to test yet seems excessive. I'm perfectly fine with the suggestion of requiring a bug reference when masking for testing. I think that adds value. I just don't think that giving the maintainers only the options of introducing untested packages directly to ~arch or not putting them in the tree at all is an unnecessary dichotomy. Why tie our own hands? Again, by all means lets require bug references and consider a masks in the absence of activity a QA issue. I'm less concerned with the actual duration and more with the level of activity. If it takes six months of hard work to get something into the tree, that isn't a problem, but six months of just rusting is a separate matter. Rich
