Greg KH: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:15:55PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers 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 toys? Were we given some when we became developers? If I had some > I'd send mine back in, but as I don't, I'll keep committing stable > kernel ebuilds that I never test as no one seems to be complaining... > > greg "never make absolute statements" k-h >
Depends on what you mean with testing. Just renaming ebuilds like foo-1.2.ebuild -> foo-1.3.ebuild and letting the community figure out if that even makes sense (e.g. the ebuild dies in src_prepare, because a patch fails or is missing) is a bit rough, although it may work if you know the underlying package very well. If you are talking about actually testing and running the software then that's a different story and definitely not within our scope when committing to ~arch. That said, I think it's a reasonable minimum to at least check if an ebuild emerges on my current machine with my current setup before committing to ~arch. If even that fails, what's the point of committing the ebuild?
