> On 20/04/07, Joshua Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Rob C wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 19/04/07, *Christian Faulhammer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> > >> > Steve Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: >> > >> > > On the issue of QA, I think enabling FEATURES="collision-detect" >> by >> > > default would do a lot more good at this stage than "test". >> > >> > Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing >> > keywording/stabling....in my eyes this is sufficient. >> > >> > V-Li >> > >> > >> > Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a >> > weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are >> > not acting as you describe. >> > >> > -Rob >> > >> Rob, >> >> Please watch it when saying that the arch teams are not acting as >> described. I can tell you that we catch what comes to us. We don't get >> every single package pushed on us as some never go through stable >> testing, and we don't have every single package installed(that's >> unrealistic). If they do then if there is a collision a note is filed in >> the bug and we wait for a fix, as it actually does bail you out of the >> build. This has been the mantra of at least x86 since the creation of >> the team. >> >> > > It strikes me that people are often a little too sensative to any possible > doubts or aspersions that may be cast there way. > > Taken in context I can't see why anyone would have a problem with what I > wrote. Either arch's are acting as described and the issue persists in > which > case the action is not sufficient OR the pescribed action is sufficent but > not always undertaken or performed. I cant see how it can be both.
Well there is still the alternative option that the prescribed action is sufficient, but it doesn't catch every corner case because that would be unrealistic, so bugs are going to get reported. Steve -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
