| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > The best way to convince me is through valid examples. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > It is also easier to be convinced when you try to understand and ask |
| 9 |
> > for clarifications instead of just rejecting without thinking :) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The problem with this entire proposal is that it's still in "well I |
| 12 |
> can't think of how it could possibly go wrong" territory. We need a |
| 13 |
> formal proof that it's sound. History has shown that if something can |
| 14 |
> be abused by Gentoo developers, it will be abused... |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Had you read the thread you would have noticed that I provided an |
| 17 |
algorithm giving sufficient conditions for the solver to work. That |
| 18 |
is, if developers pay attention to repoman warnings/errors, it will |
| 19 |
never fail. Obviously, since we're still in the SAT space, you can |
| 20 |
ignore the errors and make it fail, but it'll never be worse than what |
| 21 |
we currently have. |
Archives