On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Nor is testing / stability atomic / equal across the branches. While
>> the f13 package may work fine, the f12 build may have severe problems.
>
> Which is something which happens maybe 1 in 1000 times, and would happen
> even less often (maybe 1 in 10000 times) if some strategic packages (such as
> SQLite) proactively tracked upstream point releases in updates (which is
> another thing I've been arguing for all this time).
>
> IMHO this risk is negligible compared to the risk of issues missing testing,
> which cannot be eliminated, no matter how much of a PITA you make testing
> requirements. So it makes no sense to care about the negligible risk. (It's
> also quite funny how the people who argue about how that risk is real are
> the same ones happily using a hash-based SCM which has a non-zero risk of
> corrupting your repositories or data due to a hash collision…) Testing will
> NEVER be infallible, whether the risk of failure is, say, 1% or 1.01%
> doesn't make any practical difference.
>
I don't understand your point. The probability of a hash collision is
many orders less than 10^{-4}. Yet this isn't acceptable for you.
However you find the 10^{-4} probability of failure for simultaneous
pushing to different branches acceptable. Aren't you contradicting
yourself?
Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
