| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Well, the first PMS version was approved by the council in 2008 |
| 4 |
> (for EAPI 2). At some point we should have tracked down all remaining |
| 5 |
> non-PMS-conformant behaviour, so it can be fixed in ebuilds, in the |
| 6 |
> package manager, or in the PMS itself. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
One thing I can say with a pretty high level of assurance is that |
| 10 |
there will NEVER be a point in time when we've tracked down all |
| 11 |
remaining non-PMS-conformant behavior. |
| 12 |
This is a bit like saying that at some point in time a mature piece of |
| 13 |
software will be free of bugs. I'd like to think that we'll get there |
| 14 |
with PMS some day, but I'm not so naive to actually believe that. The |
| 15 |
rate of finding new issues should of course go down, but software QA |
| 16 |
is a hard problem. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But, I agree completely that when we discover these they're bugs and |
| 19 |
need to be fixed. PMS is broken is a description of a problem, not a |
| 20 |
resolution to a problem. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Rich |
Archives