| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:52:00 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> That's a great explanation (thanks, I now know the details to the |
| 6 |
>> degree I'd be interested), but what was asked for was examples of |
| 7 |
>> breakage, aka actual bugs. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Why? You can easily look and see that it's broken. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Only for a suitable definition of "broken". |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Examples will merely be dismissed as one-off cases that can be |
| 14 |
> worked around, or as relying upon a string of coincidences that will |
| 15 |
> "obviously" never really happen, right up until they do, at which |
| 16 |
> point they'll be dismissed with a WORKSFORME. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Real examples would be issues like bugs 83877 [1] or 263387 [2]. |
| 19 |
Nothing that could be easily dismissed or worked around. Both issues |
| 20 |
are fixed with Portage since a long time. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't know of any example where non-preservation of nanosecond |
| 23 |
timestamps would cause problems. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> What you have is a proof that it's broken, which is far better than |
| 26 |
> an example. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So we have a proven theorem, but unfortunately the cases where it is |
| 29 |
applicable form an empty set. ;-) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ulrich |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/83877#c36> |
| 34 |
[2] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/263387> |
Archives