On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 08:03:16PM +0100, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: > On domenica 6 novembre 2022 14:27:40 CET John Helmert III wrote: > > As far as I can tell, there's ONE person relying completely on a > > proprietary arch testing system. > > > > Ago, could you comment on this? What's blocking you from open sourcing > > your software? > > Hi, > > I already answered in the previous post: > > "I still use getatoms.py to fetch 'doable' stablereqs (it is on my todo > to switch to nattka). And I have a script the **simply** does emerge over the > list of > the packages. There is nothing obscure in it." > > I'm working in arch testing since 2009. In the past I relied on scripts done > by someone else > and every time there was an issue I got no response.
And so you force that frustration on everyone else? Why? > At a certain point I decided to make my own script in language I know so I > can edit it when > is needed. None of this blocks you from open sourcing it. Is your reason for not open-sourcing your automation really that "There is nothing obscure in it"? You also ignored my other question: "I'll also point out that you removed the Github repository that you used to tell people to report issues with your CI at, while there were several outstanding issues. Why?" > Since few years we allow self stabilization from maintainer. Do we know how > and with > what they test? No because it is not required. > The requirement for test is that the package you are testing works as > expected. > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64_Arch_Testers#Arch_tester.27s_policy[1] > > Agostino > > -------- > [1] > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64_Arch_Testers#Arch_tester.27s_policy
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
