On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 07:32:54PM -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 01/11/2012 19:23, Steven J. Long wrote:
He's right tho: the topic was Why doesn't your tinderbox work with
overlays? Your response was to insult Arfrever and not actually answer
the point.
_Arfrever himself_ point to
On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the package
would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have to file any bugs
at all, just (automatically) email the output back to the overlay developer?
Which means I
On 11/05/2012 10:39 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
On 05/11/2012 07:31, Steven J. Long wrote:
Are you really missing the fact that by testing someone's overlay, the
package
would by definition not be in the tree, and you wouldn't have to file any
bugs
at all, just (automatically) email the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/11/12 12:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
1) Over time, unstable has become too stable (I know, I know).
People expect things to work, and nobody wants to break working
systems by committing works-in-progress to ~arch.
We have p.mask for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2012 12:15 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 05/11/12 12:00 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
1) Over time, unstable has become too stable (I know, I know).
People expect things to work, and nobody wants to break working
systems by committing
On 05/11/2012 09:15, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
We have p.mask for that, though, so dev's could get in the habit of
committing and hard-masking things more, rather than using overlays.
Amen.
That's what I've been saying for the past week or so, and before as well.
Get it in p.mask, so that
On 05/11/2012 09:32, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Being hard masked is a little bit stronger than what I had in mind. I
was thinking, no known problems, but it hasn't been tested
thoroughly. Users with a death wish could run it, and it might work.
That would leave package.mask for known brokenness:
