On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:50:13PM -0700, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Dirty experiments, no. Testing stuff that's almost ready, yes. If you > run the tinderbox against dirty experiments, the time _I_ pour in to > sort through the logs report bugs is wasted because they'll hit stupid > hacks that fail to work. > > _If_ it's ready to be tested it is ready to be in package.mask and > vice-versa, as it's expected to work *but has to be tested*. If it's not > expected to work, why should I spend time on the tinderbox? > > > I don't understand. The topic was how your tinderbox could be even > > more useful for Gentoo, but you make personal remarks and bring up > > devrel and QA? That's confusing. > > You ask me to step off Arfrever, I'm telling you why I'm not. > 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. > > I'm sure you're open to the idea that your design can be made even > > more useful, if only for others, in ways you didn't think of yourself. > > See what I wrote above. If you don't understand _why_ I'm avoiding > overlays with reason, then I'm seriously wasting my time responding to you. > Well yeah, you finally explained something, after several emails of bullshit. Bully for you. Sure you're not burning out?
For anyone else not sure about reasons, there's some more here: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/08/fixed-in-overlay-read-not-fixed Not that I agree with the argument: a tinderbox that can handle overlays sounds much more useful. The process outlined is that you can do special runs against p.masked packages, given an email from the developer. Adding the overlay is just as easy to script, so same amount of work, or less. Of course if the overlay is badly maintained, you don't have to do anything you don't want. But if you don't want to support that workflow *at all* (or only if all the overlay packages are first introduced to the main tree and p.masked in line with _your_ preferred workflow) that is of course your choice. Just don't be surprised when people who work in overlays for whatever reason choose another tinderbox, or deem your tinderbox irrelevant to _their_ workflow. After all, it is: by design, as you've so politely explained. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
