On Monday 09 November 2009 17:52:23 Patrick Lauer wrote: > 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?
you [thankfully] arent handling perl, so i dont see how that package is relevant. > > > 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. apparently you're incapable of realizing that you already are. > > > (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) this example is bs and you know it. i'm not going to test every USE flag combo, especially ones that take specific profiles. ignoring that, this is for configurations that another team handles. i'm not maintaining the hardening patches. > and maybe forgot to upload a patch (#292223) yes, i roll so many patch tarballs that i sometimes forget to post some. and it's not an obvious scenario to me since it emerges fine on my system. > 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. this is sort of argument is also complete bs. other people causing bugs is absolutely no excuse to knowingly introduce bugs of your own. unlike yours, mine werent done on purpose. > 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. no. you've been told by multiple developers, including the QA team, to stop knowingly introduce crap into the tree. if you dont fix your development processes, the next step is to punt you yet again from the pool. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
