On 11/28/2011 06:59 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
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?
About 2 minutes? Enabling the parallel startup thingy and rebooting the
machine. There you go :-/
