On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: > With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on > the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and > rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected > to be completely and consistently broken, either. > > If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an > hour > getting three machines affected by this problem back into working > state. > > If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)
Sorry to add more to the whining but... Yes, you are in the testing tree. Yes, as a member of testing, *you* expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test things, break them, and report bugs. > And no, don't expect the devs to have tested something even they have told you is "experimental" and might not always work. If you don't like the unpredictability of testing, move to something more *stable* and don't enable options that come with a caveat. >
