| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:19:04 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 17:13:57 +0100 |
| 4 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 18:07:00 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > The best way to convince me is through valid examples. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > It is also easier to be convinced when you try to understand and |
| 10 |
> > > ask for clarifications instead of just rejecting without |
| 11 |
> > > thinking :) |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > The problem with this entire proposal is that it's still in "well I |
| 14 |
> > can't think of how it could possibly go wrong" territory. We need a |
| 15 |
> > formal proof that it's sound. History has shown that if something |
| 16 |
> > can be abused by Gentoo developers, it will be abused... |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Had you read the thread you would have noticed that I provided an |
| 19 |
> algorithm giving sufficient conditions for the solver to work. That |
| 20 |
> is, if developers pay attention to repoman warnings/errors, it will |
| 21 |
> never fail. Obviously, since we're still in the SAT space, you can |
| 22 |
> ignore the errors and make it fail, but it'll never be worse than what |
| 23 |
> we currently have. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You have shown that you produce a solution, not the solution that's |
| 26 |
actually wanted. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives