| 1 |
On 03/31/12 17:52, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:44:03 +0300 |
| 3 |
> Alex Alexander <alex.alexander@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> @preserved-libs works very well and is awesome. hack or not. IMO it |
| 5 |
>> should be in stable already. I've been using it on stable production |
| 6 |
>> boxes for years without any issues :) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> ...and here we see the problem. You think that "I haven't noticed it |
| 9 |
> break" means "it works". |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The problem with preserved-libs (and emerge --jobs, for that matter) is |
| 12 |
> that the design is "I can think of a few ways where it might break, so |
| 13 |
> I'll hard-code in special cases to handle those, but in general I |
| 14 |
> can't think of what other problems there are so it's fine". That's a |
| 15 |
> bad way of doing things. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
Good enough is the worst enemy of perfect. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
While we have s 98% solution that doesn't handle all corner cases you |
| 20 |
have a theoretical construct in your brain that might in theory cover |
| 21 |
100% of all cases, but it's in your brain where I can't use it, so ... |
| 22 |
I'll take the pragmatic approach and use what works. |
Archives