| 1 |
Rob C wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On 19/04/07, *Christian Faulhammer* <opfer@g.o |
| 5 |
> <mailto:opfer@g.o>> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk |
| 8 |
> <mailto:slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>>: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > On the issue of QA, I think enabling FEATURES="collision-detect" by |
| 11 |
> > default would do a lot more good at this stage than "test". |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Arch teams normally have collision-protect enabled when doing |
| 14 |
> keywording/stabling....in my eyes this is sufficient. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> V-Li |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Its obviously not, Many users are reporting file-collisions on a |
| 20 |
> weekly basis. So either this isn't sufficient or the arch teams are |
| 21 |
> not acting as you describe. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> -Rob |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
Rob, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Please watch it when saying that the arch teams are not acting as |
| 28 |
described. I can tell you that we catch what comes to us. We don't get |
| 29 |
every single package pushed on us as some never go through stable |
| 30 |
testing, and we don't have every single package installed(that's |
| 31 |
unrealistic). If they do then if there is a collision a note is filed in |
| 32 |
the bug and we wait for a fix, as it actually does bail you out of the |
| 33 |
build. This has been the mantra of at least x86 since the creation of |
| 34 |
the team. |
Archives