Am 28.11.2011 17:15, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras:
> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>> On Sun, 2011-11-27 at 20:28 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>>> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
>>> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
>>> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
>>> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>>>
>>> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an
>>> hour
>>> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working
>>> state.
>>>
>>> If anyone still has it installed, it's time to sync and downgrade :)
>>
>> Sorry to add more to the whining but...
>>
>> Yes, you are in the testing tree.  Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
>> expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
>> things, break them, and report bugs.
> 
> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken.  That means
> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.
> 
> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
> are problems".  It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
> didn't even try it once".
> 
> 

Do you have any idea how much time you can spend with the kind of system
testing you propose? Most companies don't do what you expect from
part-time devs. You either have provide means to automate it or
outsource it with very cheap labor. Otherwise it will never be done
(talking from experience here).

However, "dev labor" is expensive since it is limited and better spent
on other issues. Automating tests for a reasonable subset of openrc's
parameter space is also a tricky issue. Therefore you have to resort to
cheap voluntarily provided "user labor" by means of ~arch.

And it worked, didn't it? You found a bug before it entered stable. Now
give yourself a pat on the shoulder for your accomplishment and go back
to stable if you value your time so high that you don't want to chase bugs.

Regards,
Florian Philipp