On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:48:22 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers <j...@gentoo.org> > wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400 > > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN > >> TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that > >> is it. > > > > Developers who "HAVEN'T [...] TESTED AT ALL" and still commit their > > changes to the tree should immediately hand in their toys and leave > > the project. > > What harm does it cause to commit an untested package in a masked > state to the tree? > > Doing so violates no policy, and IMHO it shouldn't be considered a > policy violation either, especially if it makes life easier on anybody > who has actually volunteered to test it. "should" != "must"; that joke aside, while it's not punishable by policy (and shouldn't even be punished if it's not repeated behavior) we rather need to keep the package.mask file of a reasonable size. The goal of this file is to have an overview of what _is_ BROKEN; when you add a lot of UNSURE, its contents will diverge away from this goal. A test of a package to determine whether it appears to be working OK or whether it destructs your system isn't too much asked for; if it works it can then be ~arch tested, if it breaks you have a bug # for p.mask. If someone can't test it at all, why was it added in the first place? -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
