On Tuesday 29 November 2011 23:28:48 Walter Dnes wrote:
> There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible
> combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option.
Not only that, but once random timing is introduced, as in any system with a
hardware clock interrupt
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
> dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
> it was.
>
> I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither
They say
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:15:14PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote
> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>
> > 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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Albert W. Hopkins
wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
>> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
>> especially among the devs (as rc_pa
On Nov 30, 2011 12:51 AM, "Albert W. Hopkins"
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> > I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
> > completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
> > especially among the devs (as rc_par
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
> especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
> time savings, especially on a
> Oh, you just want to test the features *you* use, understood.
Guys,
I did not want to start a flamewar. I've been running ~arch for years
and I've had my fair share of breakage, which I'm perfectly fine with
(e.g. I'm not complaining that dev-lang/php-5.4.0._rc2 currently fails
to compile with
James Wall wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins"wrote:
But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
Or maybe I just got used to
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
>> "Albert W. Hopkins" wrote:
>>
>>> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
>>> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
>>
>> Or maybe I just got used t
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins" wrote:
But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
stopped noticing them...
I do
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 20:57 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Sorry if that sounded harsh but really, what you want is what Redhat
> (maybe) does for its releases and those only occur every few years and
> cost lots of money.
Yeah, and even *they* send test pre-releases to some of their clients
and
Am 28.11.2011 20:16, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
>> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>>> 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 yo
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
>>
>> Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
>>>
>>> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>
> Wit
On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
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 don
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins" wrote:
> But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find
> bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P
Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and
stopped noticing them...
I do that a lot at work t
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 17:19 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> I don't think that's fair. Perhaps nobody had compiled it using the
> exact set of USE flags and the exast set of library versions and
> configurations you were using, but I've never seen anything appear in
> testing that was so broken it c
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:41 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using
> Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever,
> if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at
> Build failures for me have alw
On 2011-11-28, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> "Albert W. Hopkins" wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>>> 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 wor
Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> 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
>
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:31:44 -0500
"Albert W. Hopkins" wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > 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 work
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> 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
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 n
22 matches
Mail list logo
