Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
Oh, you just want to test the features *you* use, understood. Guys, I did not want to start a flamewar. I've been running ~arch for years and I've had my fair share of breakage, which I'm perfectly fine with (e.g. I'm not complaining that dev-lang/php-5.4.0._rc2 currently fails to compile with USE=+snmp). It's my choice to run unstable, and I only do so on machines where a hosed system is a nuisance rather than an emergency. I write software for a living, so I know perfectly well that covering every possible configuration in your tests is extremely difficult, especially if you're not granted ample resources (i.e. time+$$$) specifically for that purpose. I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and frequent boots). Things were handled well: as soon as the issue was reported, the breakage was acknowledged and the offending version was masked and then removed. That's all as far as I'm concerned. No data was lost and no kittens were killed. Let's move on. andrea
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and frequent boots). I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup times with rc_parallel. The config file even says slight speed improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say yeah, you might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most people. Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get to pick up the pieces.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Nov 30, 2011 12:51 AM, Albert W. Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote: On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and frequent boots). I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup times with rc_parallel. The config file even says slight speed improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say yeah, you might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most people. Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get to pick up the pieces. On my server boxen, rc_parallel gives a very tangible benefit. The boot time gets cut by roughly half. Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Albert W. Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote: On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread, especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and frequent boots). I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup times with rc_parallel. The config file even says slight speed improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say yeah, you might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most people. Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get to pick up the pieces. I enabled it for a while, ran into a problem once which left my system unbootable, chrooted from a livecd and disabled it, and never thought about enabling it again. I usually count my yearly reboots on one hand, so a few seconds saved to me are not worth my potential minutes or hours spent fixing it if it goes wrong, in my opinion. For a dev box or laptop that is booted frequently, that's a different story. Just not my story. :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:15:14PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote: 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. There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option. ~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. waltdnes@d531 ~ $ head /etc/rc.conf # Global OpenRC configuration settings # Set to YES if you want the rc system to try and start services # in parallel for a slight speed improvement. When running in parallel we # prefix the service output with its name as the output will get # jumbled up. # WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock # the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply # patches that fix it without breaking other things! #rc_parallel=NO The developers tried it, and it worked on *THEIR SYSTEMS*. It appears that even the developers don't dare run rc_parallel on their machines... nuff said. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what it was. I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither They say that memory is the second thing to go... I forget what the first is. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Tuesday 29 November 2011 23:28:48 Walter Dnes wrote: There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option. Not only that, but once random timing is introduced, as in any system with a hardware clock interrupt, it becomes impossible in principle to cover all cases, so testing is always imperfect. That was the death-knell of mathematical proof of correctness in the 80s; it only ever applied to a small subset of real computer systems. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
[gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
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.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: 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. You're experience is obviously different than mine. I've been using Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even attempt to compile it. This is par for the course. And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as probably won't work and you're expecting them to test *that* given that they don't even test things that are expected to work?! Good luck with that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:31:44 -0500 Albert W. Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote: On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: 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. You're experience is obviously different than mine. I've been using Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even attempt to compile it. This is par for the course. And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as probably won't work and you're expecting them to test *that* given that they don't even test things that are expected to work?! Good luck with that. My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever, if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end, usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
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 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On 2011-11-28, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Albert W. Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote: On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:15 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: 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. You're experience is obviously different than mine. I've been using Gentoo for many years and sometimes things in unstable don't even compile... and it's obvious that the Gentoo developers didn't even attempt to compile it. I don't think that's fair. Perhaps nobody had compiled it using the exact set of USE flags and the exast set of library versions and configurations you were using, but I've never seen anything appear in testing that was so broken it could be said that nobody had ever tried to build it. This is par for the course. And you're talking about a feature that is already documented as probably won't work and you're expecting them to test *that* given that they don't even test things that are expected to work?! Good luck with that. My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever, if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end, usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess. I've been running Gentoo for 5-6 years on multiple machines, and there have been a couple occasions when a testing version of something didn't build because it wasn't compatible with the testing version of something else with a particular set of USE flags. Generally I would just switch back to stable for the packages involved, since whatever feature/fix that had prompted the switch to testing had long since made it into the stable version. Other times, just waiting a day or two and trying again would fix the problem. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! It's a hole all the at way to downtown Burbank! gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 18:41 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: My experience is different to both of yours. I too have been using Gentoo for many years and had good results with unstable. Hardly ever, if even at all, have I run into packages that would not compile at Build failures for me have always been some unusual configs on my end, usually strange USE flags. But I don't use any of the more exotic packages like those in sci- and games- so YMMV I guess. I'm not saying that unstable is somehow bad, I'm just saying it's sometimes... unstable. I dont' have any exotic packages or configs either, but I do from time to time encounter such problems as 1. Patches not included 2. Patches not applying 3. build failures because a patch in a previous revision is no longer applicable in the new revision 4. build failures caused by upstream issues 5. build failures due bad ebuilds 6. incomplete DEPENDS or RDEPENDS(this actually happens quite more frequently than i'd like) 7. Broken functionality (upstream bugs) 8. A dependency of a package was bumped, and that package doesn't build against the bump. Granted, when I test, I test hard. I depclean with build time dependencies removed, to make sure packages have the correct DEPENDS. I do an emerge -e world about once per month. I have a build system that builds virtual appliances from scratch that help me find bugs (granted, most of these VMs are in the stable tree so they actually find bugs in stable and the stage3 tarballs). I set USE flags manually instead of using the defaults. So, while that may be considered an unusual config it should work and it helps me find bugs before they get into stable. But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P -a
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 17:19 +, Grant Edwards wrote: I don't think that's fair. Perhaps nobody had compiled it using the exact set of USE flags and the exast set of library versions and configurations you were using, but I've never seen anything appear in testing that was so broken it could be said that nobody had ever tried to build it. I have.. even for packages w/o a USE flag. Granted, I'm not blaming the developers.. they have a lot of work to do. But it *does* happen. Usually the fix is easy enough. Just yesterday I reported a bug with webkit-gtk. The gtk2 version doesn't build at all (it's an upstream issue that they call a gtk3-specific function). No matter what combination of USE flags you use it wasn't gonna build, but it was obvious nobody had ever tried to build it, not even upstream apparently. :P -a
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500 Albert W. Hopkins mar...@letterboxes.org wrote: But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and stopped noticing them... I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what it was. I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
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 :-/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de wrote: 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 :-/ That's a facetious answer, and you're purposely only examining a tiny piece of the testing surface. Hindsight is 20/20, though only if you're lucky. Perhaps they've never seen this type of failure before, and they could add a single test to whatever unit test suite they may be using. Perhaps that's an improvement they can make going forward. To fully test OpenRC, you'd want a two-stage testing harness. The outer stage would generate Gentoo VMs with every plausibly-relevant USE flag permutation crossed against as many automatically-generated permutations of OpenRC configuration as could be considered plausibly encountered. For each generated VM, spin it up. Watch for some kind of watchdog hey, I booted successfully! indicator. Then spin up a testing harness *inside* the VM to ensure all services started and behave correctly. Dump a report to the vmhost detailing that everything went well (or didn't), and hibernate the VM. vmhost looks at the report and decides whether or not to keep the saved VM state. That's an extraordinary amount of testing to do. And that's what I see argued as what ~arch is for; instead of having a script whip up and test hundreds of virtual machines, people running ~arch do that testing. Gentoo devs get reports for the features and combinations that people actually *use*, and can spend less time fixing features nobody is using. (And it's obvious none of the OpenRC devs are using parallel boot themselves, or they would have caught this. Perhaps that's why it's experimental; nobody who actively uses that feature is keeping up with HEAD and offering patches.) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
Am 28.11.2011 20:16, schrieb Nikos Chantziaras: 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 :-/ Oh, you just want to test the features *you* use, understood. What about *my* (imaginary) issue with rc_depend_strict=YES or one of the other two dozen parameters you can set there. Not even considering different init scripts in different run levels and so forth. I, for example, start dmcrypt _before_ lvm because all lvm volumes are on one encrypted partition. Do you want that to be tested as well or is your experimental feature more valuable than mine? And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What about all the other scripts and config files which belong to baselayout2? What about all other packages? If the openrc dev has to test his configs, surely the SSH dev also has to because a crashing ssh daemon leaves everyone with a headless server in quite a uncomfortable situation. Let's make a simple example, shall we? Let's say we only want to test all yes/no variables in rc.conf. There are 7 of them. We also remove those two only affecting output and you still have 5. That are 2^5=32 combinations that you consider valid and therefore want to be tested. Now we have a dev spending one hour doing nothing but reboots. Even changing each variable (I counted 27 in total) only once takes a lot of time and also different hardware capabilities (like a second network interface). Sorry if that sounded harsh but really, what you want is what Redhat (maybe) does for its releases and those only occur every few years and cost lots of money. Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 20:57 +0100, Florian Philipp wrote: Sorry if that sounded harsh but really, what you want is what Redhat (maybe) does for its releases and those only occur every few years and cost lots of money. Yeah, and even *they* send test pre-releases to some of their clients and beg them to test and submit bugs. Because no one has the resources to test *everything*. But people who put themselves in the *testing* branch are basically volunteering to be crash-test dummies and really shouldn't be surprised when something doesn't work.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500 Albert W. Hopkinsmar...@letterboxes.org wrote: But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and stopped noticing them... I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what it was. I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither Uh oh. I do that too. Thing is, I can't forget hal. O_O I do forget those little things I run into and fix easily tho. Is it age? :-( Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500 Albert W. Hopkinsmar...@letterboxes.org wrote: But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and stopped noticing them... I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what it was. I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither Uh oh. I do that too. Thing is, I can't forget hal. O_O I do forget those little things I run into and fix easily tho. Is it age? :-( Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! You had to bring up that ugly beast, didn't you -- No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?
James Wall wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:22:48 -0500 Albert W. Hopkinsmar...@letterboxes.orgwrote: But my feeling is, if you use the testing branch and you *don't* find bugs, then you aren't testing hard enough :P Or maybe I just got used to dealing with occasional oopsies and stopped noticing them... I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what it was. I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither Uh oh. I do that too. Thing is, I can't forget hal. O_O I do forget those little things I run into and fix easily tho. Is it age? :-( Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! You had to bring up that ugly beast, didn't you Sorry. ;-) Dale goes back to his hole now Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
