| 1 |
On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: |
| 3 |
>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on |
| 4 |
>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and |
| 5 |
>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected |
| 6 |
>> to be completely and consistently broken, either. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an |
| 9 |
>> hour |
| 10 |
>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working |
| 11 |
>> state. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Sorry to add more to the whining but... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Yes, you are in the testing tree. Yes, as a member of testing, *you* |
| 18 |
> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test |
| 19 |
> things, break them, and report bugs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That means |
| 22 |
not even its upstream dev bothered to test it. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there |
| 25 |
are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we |
| 26 |
didn't even try it once". |
Archives