Ryan Hill wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please people,
if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
Um... no? One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
temporarily masking a package until it can be tested an
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 23:44:10 -0600
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
>
> So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just
> as it always has been. Sorry.
>
As far as i understand, the complaint is not about testing itself, but
about providing more
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 11:44:10PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
> Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please people,
> >
> >
> >if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
>
> So, no, I'll continue using package.mask for testing just
>
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:24:35 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please people,
>
>
>if you want to get something tested, then don't mask it.
Um... no? One thing that package.mask has always been used for is
temporarily masking a package until it can be tested and then unleash
Mart Raudsepp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:06:39 +0300:
> Of course when that initial testing is done with helping users, the
> reason could be modified to tell things broke and what the tracking bug
> is, or unmasked if it works fine with
