On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:24:51 -0500 Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | The underlying code shouldn't break anything as it was tested before | committing it to CVS. I am really starting to question whether or not | you comprehend the concept of actually testing something before | committing it or not.
Actually... Rather interesting sidenote... I've noticed that with a certain group of fairly newly recruited developers, there's a really big tendency to blame anything in sight for any screwups they make rather than taking responsibility for their own actions. Things I've heard so far: * Our docs suck! It's all the fault of the docs! -- true, to a degree, but no excuse for not asking before committing. * Our tools suck! I didn't get any errors with repoman, so I assumed that it was ok. -- repoman isn't perfect, nor can it ever be perfect. It's useful for catching certain kinds of easy to make screwups (deps, for example), but it's not designed to catch every possible kind of mistake anyone could ever make. * Our mentors suck! We did things that we weren't sure of without asking them and they didn't magically guess and tell us not to. * Our eclass setup sucks! I think it'd be kind of entertaining in a sick twisted laughing at a car accident kind of way to give these people a copy of the repoman that came with portage 2.0.40ish. Ya know, no dep checking on non-x86, that kind of thing... -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgp7AiaBXR5vv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
