Ryan Hill wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please people,
if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
Um... no? One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 11:44:10PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please people,
if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just
as it always
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 23:44:10 -0600
Ryan Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just
as it always has been. Sorry.
As far as i understand, the complaint is not about testing itself, but
about providing more
Mart Raudsepp [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:06:39 +0300:
Of course when that initial testing is done with helping users, the
reason could be modified to tell things broke and what the tracking bug
is, or unmasked if it works fine with
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please people,
if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
Um... no? One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and then unleashed
on
