Greg KH: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 05:17:36AM +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 19:58:22 -0700 >> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Markos, >>> >>> I was wondering why docker 1.0.0 wasn't seeming to get updated on my >>> boxes recently, despite me commiting the update to the cvs tree, and >>> Tianon noticed that it was masked at the moment: >>> >>> # Markos Chandras <hwoar...@gentoo.org> (03 May 2014) >>> # Masked for further testing >> >> Oh, that good old "masked for testing", which actually never works. > > Exactly. >
Yes, people should stop abusing package.mask for testing purposes. If someone has tested something or it is already known to be broken, then a mask is reasonable. If something is that fragile that you want to add it to the tree masked, maybe it isn't even ready for it yet. Fun-stuff, alpha-software and other broken things have a good place in overlays. That said, we should probably set up a policy to get this into peoples heads: don't mask anything without a bug reference. Sure... there are always exceptions. That's why we would call it a policy. If gentoo users run ~arch they have to accept the fact of downgrades, manual intervention etc. That's what ~arch is for and I am using it exactly like that. Doing the opposite * increases the workload, because we are effectively running 3 branches * decreases the amount of testing for that time period, because... it's masked * causes confusion (see this thread) * decreases the quality of our stable branch, because people suddenly expect the unstable branch to be ...stable and don't bother with filing stabilization requests anymore * makes the whole testing/stabilization iteration actually slower, possibly even causing unnecessary exposures to security issues
