Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: File collisions

[Rob C]

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

It strikes me that people are often a little too sensative to any possible
doubts or aspersions that may be cast there way.

Taken in context I can't see why anyone would have a problem with what I
wrote. Either arch's are acting as described and the issue persists in which
case the action is not sufficient OR the pescribed action is sufficent but
not always undertaken or performed. I cant see how it can be both.

Regards
-Rob