On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 11:01:53PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch. > > Suppose the maintainer is unable to test some aspect of the package, > > or any aspect of the package? Do we want it to break completely for > > ~arch? In that event, nobody will run ~arch for that package, and > > then it still isn't getting tested. > > I'm not saying that we should just randomly throw something into ~arch > without testing it, but ~arch users are running ~arch with the > understanding that their systems will break from time to time and they > are expected to be able to deal with it when/if it happens. ~arch is > not a second stable branch.
Nor is it a dumping ground for something you can't be bothered to overlay. > > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm > > not convinced that this is a bad thing. ~arch should be for packages > > that have received rudimentary testing and which are ready for testing > > by a larger population. Masking should be used for packages that > > haven't received rudimentary testing - they might not have been tested > > at all. > > The concern with this argument is the definition of rudimentary testing > is subjective, especially when a package supports many possible > configurations. Well it can never be fresh from upstream, even if that upstream is a Gentoo developer. eudev is more of a sanity filter, and doesn't claim to be upstream. If anything we want more constraints when a Gentoo dev is "lead" on a project, as there are even less dykes in the way. > I think some packages need wide testing before they go stable, and that > is where ~arch can help out. IOW some packages don't need "wide" testing, which by your yardstick, is what anyone with experience/common-sense would call "a beta release." > In particular, I would argue that for system-critical packages, users > should be very careful about running ~arch unless they know what the > fallout can be. Yes, and so should Gentoo, when faced with "developers" who think themselves exceptions to the rules everyone else should live by. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
