| 1 |
William Hubbs posted on Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:57:20 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 04:44:52PM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Running the ~arch release version, OTOH, doesn't appear to |
| 5 |
>> significantly reduce the incidence of bugs compared to live-git, but |
| 6 |
>> there's a much bigger pile of changes in a release, and far less |
| 7 |
>> information about what they actually are, so I'm bug-tracing pretty |
| 8 |
>> much blind and that's no fun at all! |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Actually I would say that running 9999 is more seceptible to breakage |
| 11 |
> than ~arch. We try to fix things in git before we do a ~arch release. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
For most folks, probably. But I seem to have a few unusual things like |
| 14 |
strange fstab entries that have triggered occasional bugs, etc. Those |
| 15 |
sorts of things apparently don't get tested by others, at least not |
| 16 |
before release to the wide world of ~arch, so they'd be there whether I |
| 17 |
waited for ~arch or not. And as I said I deal with less updates at once |
| 18 |
and get finer detail on the changelogs doing the git things, including |
| 19 |
individual commit diffs if the whatchanged looks interesting enough to |
| 20 |
check them or if I do end up with a problem. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 24 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 25 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives