On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:36 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> 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. 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 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. Sure, it could go into an overlay, but for that matter so could all of ~arch. I guess the question is, what exactly are we trying to fix? Even if occasionally a maintainer drops the ball and leaves something masked for a year, how is that different from a maintainer dropping the ball and not adding a new release to the main tree for a year? Would we be better off if Docker 1 wasn't in the tree at all? If it happened to have a known issue would ~arch users be better off if some other dev came along and helpfully added it to the tree unmasked no realizing that somebody else was already working on it? Rich
