Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
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 then unleashed on the general population. I think there's testing and testing, and we're getting confused between the two :) The testing cycle with packages that you know will badly break something, usually involves test, patch, test, patch, etc. During which the package is masked for good reason (the reason specified in package.mask) and certain users may unmask for whatever reason (helping to test, etc). Then once you're happy to unleash it on ~arch, it still requires some amount of testing, but generally isn't may delete all your data testing. It's not like we're putting masked stuff in the tree with the hope that someone will find it and try it out. You mask a package, ask the user or whoever to test it, and unmask it when it's ready. We don't just throw untested stuff into the tree when we suspect problems with it. ~arch is not a playground. Already one of the major complaints we see against Gentoo time and time again is that it breaks too often and the maintenance burden is too high. Why would we want to exacerbate that? But this isn't a complaint against ~arch surely? The general feeling I get from gentoo-user when someone complains about an ~arch production box or remote system that broke, is well, what did you expect from ~arch? We don't /want/ ~arch systems to get automatically widely exposed to the stuff we're intending to get tested. No, not delete all your data testing, but yes you do want it exposed to may still be slightly quirky testing. That's the whole point of masking it! We want it tested by a few people before we expose it to the unwashed masses. I would assume the unwashed masses are arch, not ~arch. If you're installing ~arch: ~arch keyword means that the application is not tested sufficiently to be put in the stable branch [1] We recommend that you only use the stable branch. However, if you don't care about stability this much... [1] The testing branch is exactly what it says - Testing. If a package is in testing, it means that the developers feel that it is functional but has not been thoroughly tested. You could very well be the first to discover a bug in the package in which case you could file a bugreport to let the developers know about it. Beware though, you might notice stability issues, imperfect package handling (for instance wrong/missing dependencies), too frequent updates (resulting in lots of building) or broken packages. If you do not know how Gentoo works and how to solve problems, we recommend that you stick with the stable and tested branch. [1] So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just as it always has been. Sorry. All IMHO from a user point of view, of course. [1] Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/ cya, -- Iain Buchanan iaindb at netspace dot net dot au fenderberg, n.: The large glacial deposits that form on the insides of car fenders during snowstorms. -- Sniglets, Rich Hall Friends
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
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 has been. Sorry. ++, especially on unleashing broken stuff to users. pgpuWmcecRWqF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
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 detailed information in the package.mask file. -- Michal Kurgan http://dev.gentoo.org/~moloh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
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 other packages. From previous discussions on this, that's really the point (besides the one about not masking it if testing is needed, which toolchain for instance pretty much has to do anyway). If it has a tracking bug, it has the necessary info. If it's just masked for testing, the necessary info isn't there. This helps me as a user who often does that sort of testing, too. Masked for testing simply isn't that useful. A tracking bug, where I can see how that testing is progressing and what other sorts of stuff I might expect to have issues with if I DO test, now THAT's actual practical info! Simply masked for testing is little better than no comment at all, or than a package revision bump without a changelog entry telling me what the big deal was that was worth the revision. (That's another irritating one, but fortunately it doesn't happen so often any more. Thanks guys!) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: Testing is not a valid reason to package.mask
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 the general population. It's not like we're putting masked stuff in the tree with the hope that someone will find it and try it out. You mask a package, ask the user or whoever to test it, and unmask it when it's ready. We don't just throw untested stuff into the tree when we suspect problems with it. ~arch is not a playground. Already one of the major complaints we see against Gentoo time and time again is that it breaks too often and the maintenance burden is too high. Why would we want to exacerbate that? We don't /want/ ~arch systems to get automatically widely exposed to the stuff we're intending to get tested. That's the whole point of masking it! We want it tested by a few people before we expose it to the unwashed masses. So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just as it always has been. Sorry. -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
