On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
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.
Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That means
not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
didn't even try it once".
