| 1 |
On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: |
| 2 |
> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on |
| 3 |
> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and |
| 4 |
> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected |
| 5 |
> to be completely and consistently broken, either. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an |
| 8 |
> hour |
| 9 |
> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working |
| 10 |
> state. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :) |
| 13 |
|
| 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 |
And no, don't expect the devs to have tested something even they have |
| 22 |
told you is "experimental" and might not always work. If you don't like |
| 23 |
the unpredictability of testing, move to something more *stable* and |
| 24 |
don't enable options that come with a caveat. |
| 25 |
> |
Archives