On Sun, Jul 06, 2014 at 01:07:18PM +, hasufell wrote:
> 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
>
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 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
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:15:55PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
> Rich Freeman 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
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> That is an edge case; it's somewhat hard to maintain a package if you
> can't test it, and there are occasions (eg. Amazon EC2 related
> packages) where this is indeed needed. I don't see a need to introduce
> that masked though; but again, it d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:44:21 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 30/06/14 03:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> > Setting up an overlay for this and poking a stick at a few
> > developers to try it out
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:19:59 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Tom Wijsman
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 teste
Rich Freeman wrote:
> If we're going to define ~arch as basically stable, and arch as
> out-of-date, then we might as well drop keywords entirely.
I actually don't think that would be such a bad thing.
I only consider ~arch relevant, because it is the closest to upstream.
I want the distribution
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 06/30/14 22:15, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN TESTED
>>> AT ALL. The maintainer knows that they compile, and that i
On 06/30/14 22:15, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
> Rich Freeman 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
On 2014.06.30 16:40, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > But... if you unmask it, someone will test it and report whether
> > it works :P.
> >
>
> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
> it'll break all the systems that i
On 2014.06.30 05:01, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package,
> but I
> am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread.
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM,
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:49:54 -0400
Joshua Kinard wrote:
> So a mask on
> "=sys-devel/gcc-4.9.0" with the reason of "Masked for testing" makes
> perfect sense, especially since this version of gcc enables strong
> stack-protection.
In that case "this version of gcc enables strong stack-protection
On 06/30/2014 09:25, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
>
On 06/30/2014 11:27, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to
>> be banned.
>
> My original point in the other thread was that "masked for testing" is
> not a valid reason. A refere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 03:14 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius
>>> napisał(a):
>>>
Here's a great
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
> 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 tes
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:32:35 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> As said before, ~arch users know that their systems will break
> sometimes, so if the package works for you, unleash it on ~arch. If
> someone using a configuration you don't have finds that it breaks, I'm
> sure it would be reported. Then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius
> > napisał(a):
> >
> >> Here's a great example of this -- dev-libs/nss-3.16-r1 is
> >> p.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:48:22 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> Agree 100%. I'm taking about masking things that HAVEN'T BEEN
> >> TESTED AT ALL. The maintainer knows tha
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:12:14 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Masked commit:
> * a part of a bigger version bump, i.e. one of many packages that
> need to update together
> * or something where I *know* that issues preventing normal function
> still exist. I.e., I want to be able to ask others
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:04:20 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
> I realize that not everybody agrees with me, but I see ~arch as a
> "semi-stable" branch - an internally consistent branch for people who
> don't feel like maintaining a horrific mess of keywords and masks in
> their /etc/portage an
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 01:07:17PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
> >> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> >>
> >> > But... if I unmask it, -every
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
>> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>>
>> > But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
>> > it'll break all the systems that
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 12:40:59 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> I'm perfectly fine with the suggestion of requiring a bug reference
> when masking for testing. I think that adds value.
You don't mean a reference to a bug report that merely says "masked for
testing" or purports to be a "tracker" (but i
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
>> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
>> it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
>> quite a lot at this point. :D
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
> Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>
> > But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
> > it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
> > quite a lot at this
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:40:19 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> But... if I unmask it, -everyone- using ~arch will install it and
> it'll break all the systems that it doesn't work on, which -could- be
> quite a lot at this point. :D
Which is great, because then you have an actual test result, whe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 11:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07 Ian Stakenvicius
> napisał(a):
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM,
Dnia 2014-06-30, o godz. 11:22:07
Ian Stakenvicius napisał(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:37:11 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> You're basically asking for the practice of hard-masks for testing to
> be banned.
My original point in the other thread was that "masked for testing" is
not a valid reason. A reference to an outstanding issue, bug report,
discussion or ot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/06/14 09:25 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell
>>> wrote:
This is still to
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
> Rich Freeman 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 [...] TESTE
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:29 AM, hasufell wrote:
> Huh? That's exactly the place. However, if you mean "AT ALL" in the
> sense that no one ever tried to compile it, then the guy who comitted
> should not have commit rights.
I mean in the sense that it has been compiled, but that it hasn't been
ex
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:25:27 -0400
Rich Freeman 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 immedia
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 11:29 +, hasufell wrote:
> > I agree that masking for testing is like having a 3rd branch, but I'm
> > not convinced that this is a bad thing.
>
> I have to reiterate:
> * increases the workload, because we are effectively running 3 branches
> * decreases the amount of te
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 12:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> > This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
>> > it can as well just land in ~arch.
>>
>> A
Rich Freeman:> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell
wrote:
>> This is still too vague for me. If it's expected to be short-term, then
>> it can as well just land in ~arch.
>
> A package that hasn't been tested AT ALL doesn't belong in ~arch.
Huh? That's exactly the place. However, if you me
Am Montag, 30. Juni 2014, 06:01:53 schrieb William Hubbs:
>
> 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 t
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 23:01 -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package, but I
> am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread.
>
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014
All,
I am starting a new thread so we don't refer to a specific package, but I
am quoting Rich and hasufell from the previous masking thread.
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 10:04:54AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell wrote:
> > This is still too vague for me. If it
40 matches
Mail list logo
