Patrick Lauer schrieb:
Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
Luca Barbato schrieb:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the
developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure,
weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a
couple of quick unit tests would catch straight away.
No, you aren't talking, you are babbling about undefined flaws that
nobody can evaluate, for which you aren't providing a way to
reproduce it and possibly doesn't exist.
lu
So in your opinion, the pkgcore maintainers should just say "Screw it,
it was just Ciaran who said that." and move on?
No, it's just unsubstantiated rumors. As such they are irrelevant until
some kind of proof is shown.
It might be, but it might also be a bug.
Of course the maintainers can choose if they go after it.
BTW: The Paludis maintainers did have a look at the "security hole" you
pointed out, even though everyone knows, that you spread lies about
Paludis...
Why is "Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff." not a way to describe how to
reproduce a problem?
It is too generic and doesn't even describe the class of bug. By the
same rationale portage and paludis have multiple bugs ...
It is indeed generic, but then you should test every part of EAPI.
The main point was, that test are missing and the fact, that there is
might be a bug, that they didn't catch yet is a follow up.
Of course, filing a bug report for a single issue might get that issue
fixed, but what caused this issue to be still there (missing tests) will
still be there.
Talking away problems, now that is a way to handle QA.
So, could anyone just actually mention what the problem is, or is the
hivemind not able to express such a simple thing?
Just think of the thousands of emails, being read by hundreds of
readers, that have cost so much time ... in that time you could have
written a patch and a bugreport.
Again, one patch and one bug report wouldn't wipe out the problem in the
long term view.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
