On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 7:36 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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.
How is not putting it in the tree at all better than putting it into the tree in a masked state? In neither case will ~arch users be testing it. I think the right approach depends on the situation. If you're taking about something where you have 47 packages that need coordination/testing/etc then an overlay makes sense. If you're talking about an isolated package, then creating an overlay for it seems like overkill. If the only one testing it is the maintainer then it probably shouldn't go in the tree. However, if the maintainer is working with others to actually test the package, then a short-term mask is probably fine. As I said earlier, though, it only makes sense if you're actually going to TEST the package. Adding it, masking it, and walking away for six months doesn't make sense. If a package is being masked because a dependency is being masked, that would be something worth noting in the Changelog. I also have no issues with requiring a bug reference. The purpose of the Changelog is to communicate, so we should be doing that. Rich
