Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:13:27 +0000 as excerpted: > Examples will merely be > dismissed as one-off cases that can be worked around, or as relying upon > a string of coincidences that will "obviously" never really happen, > right up until they do, at which point they'll be dismissed with a > WORKSFORME. What you have is a proof that it's broken, which is far > better than an example.
Actually, that "dismissed with WORKSFORME" strikes a chord, here. There was a very strange parallel make bug that I filed that was closed with that. I'd have really liked to see someone with some skill tackle it, as that was the only one I've ever seen that had striped fail and working zones, and I've have loved to see some logic as to why... (If -j10 failed, -j3 and -j15 might succeed, -l24 fail again, and -j33 succeed again...) Unfortunately, flameeyes, the only one I know who really gets into such things, was fresh out of the hospital at the time, and I think it was beyond the maintainer's abilities, so WORKSFORME was about the best that could be done. I've long since changed and changed again my makeopts, and don't remember the pkg now, tho I could probably find it in my old bug mail if I needed to. So I gotta admit you have a point, with that one. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
