From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N7d64-00086W-VV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:52:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0AB14E0AE1; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dev.gentooexperimental.org (dev.gentooexperimental.org [81.93.240.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D27F8E0AE1 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localnet (xdsl-87-79-158-53.netcologne.de [87.79.158.53]) by dev.gentooexperimental.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B93D76BA3F for ; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:52:27 +0100 (CET) From: Patrick Lauer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] QA is unimportant? Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:52:23 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.90 (Linux/2.6.30-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.3.74; x86_64; ; ) References: <200911091730.27444.patrick@gentoo.org> <200911091516.28737.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200911091516.28737.vapier@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200911092352.23709.patrick@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: abfe290a-264e-4a12-9a8c-ddc889b23fa2 X-Archives-Hash: f6b4ece061a0caf8be0f407dae6989e0 On Monday 09 November 2009 21:16:28 Mike Frysinger wrote: > oh muffin ! get over it already. either do it right or stop doing it. perl? That's how you want to handle things? Great. I think we can agree that that strategy doesn't work. > > You should understand one thing: I don't care at all about most packages. > then let them die. Not an option. I refuse to sabotage the best distro in the world. > > (Btw, I wonder how many bugs glibc-2.11 will bring. We'll just let users > > discover them. I love that QA!) > > hmm, let's see, one package that was already broken under other C libraries > broke under glibc-2.11. and it's already been fixed. of course, if you'd > simply used bugzilla's search function, you wouldnt have to rhetorically > wonder aloud. So you actually built all packages against it? Awesome. I thought flameeyes and the sabayon people were the only one doing that at the moment. And talking about glibc ... For 2.11 you didn't even test if all patches apply (bug #292139) and maybe forgot to upload a patch (#292223) Plus a few bugs (hello simple bugzilla search function!) that I can't comment on yet as they might be user error. So please, do not try to talk to me about QA when you can't even handle simple things without error yourself. Especially on critical system packages. Let's just agree that things aren't perfect and when we discuss this topic next time - maybe in a year - we want things to be better. Bye, Patrick