On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200 > Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> # Gen 2 Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (`date`) >> # Masked for testing. >> >=rofl-cat/omgpkg-ver >> >> >> Please people, >> >> >> if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it. If you >> find that you cannot commit an ebuild because of badly keyworded >> dependencies, then drop the relevant keywords and file a bug report >> with a KEYWORDREQ. > > Lest I forget, the exception being that a particular version should > never ever go stable, in which case the masking reason should still be > different. In that case you would still not mark it as "masked for > testing" - what I wanted to clarify is that the mask reason isn't valid > if you want stuff to get tested, as it prevents exactly that from > happening.
I would argue that overlays are a bigger barrier to testing than being "masked for testing" At least they are exposed to the entire Gentoo population if they are p.masked in the tree. Additionally, there are use cases for p.masking for testing in the tree, especially if you have users testing it for you. There shouldn't be a limit to the amount of self-QA that we provide to "protect" the users, if so deemed necessary. Just saying... -Jeremy
