| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 01:06:22PM +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > for various reasons/limitations/bugs/whatever, i rewrote epatch. seems to |
| 4 |
> > work for me, but in case someone wants to check before i release: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Wouldn't it be safer to let this run on, say, Patrick's or Deigo's |
| 7 |
> tinderboxes for a day or so before pushing this to eutils? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Murphy's law becomes more applicable as the affected domain of a |
| 10 |
> change increases :) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Err... that's a damn fine idea actually, although it requires getting |
| 13 |
them to agree to it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For changes of this sort, abusing the tinderboxes to get a real world |
| 16 |
test run makes a lot of sense. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Diego/Patrick- thoughts? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
~harring |
Archives