| |||||||||||||
This isn't newThis isn't newPosted Jul 17, 2012 17:14 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)In reply to: This isn't new by dwmw2 Parent article: Left by Rawhide
This time (and all the previous times Rawhide spectacularly failed) the breakage came from Red Hat-written code pushed in Rawhide by the people who wrote it.
It's not pure packagers which are the problem. They are actually very careful about what they push precisely because they're not sure they'll be able to fix it if it breaks. The problem is people who write code and package it themselves, and feel they won't make any mistake ever, and anyway if it breaks they owe nothing to Rawhide guinea pigs which are only there to help them meet coding deadlines (gross generalization, dracut people are more aware than most of the risks though they do have to contend with systemd abrupt changes nowadays)
That's the typical problem you get in any project where you have devs that perform operational jobs, if you didn't make sure beforehand that they understand operations means they have real users and have to fix the problems they cause as soon as they cause them (unlike broken code that can languish in a VCS for days without consequences)
(Log in to post comments)
This isn't new Posted Jul 18, 2012 5:08 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Case in point:
* Tue Jul 17 2012 020-96.git20120717 ← dracut working again
* Wed Jul 11 2012 020-84.git20120711
* Wed Jul 11 2012 020-83.git20120711
* Tue Jul 10 2012 020-72.git20120710
* Tue Jul 10 2012 020-70.git20120710
* Mon Jul 09 2012 020-64.git20120709
* Mon Jul 09 2012 020-57.git20120709
* Mon Jul 09 2012 020-55.git20120709
* Mon Jul 09 2012 020-52.git20120709
* Fri Jul 06 2012 020-51.git20120706 ← start of huge breakage
And:
* Tue Jul 03 2012 Lennart Poettering - 186-1
This isn't new Posted Jul 18, 2012 19:17 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Ah, software developer optimism. You gotta love it.
(Of course *I* would never suffer from such a delusion. My code simply has no bugs. I know because I fixed all the bugs I found, and now I can find no more bugs so I know there must be no more bugs. Also, the Earth has a green sky and six retrograde moons.)
This isn't new Posted Jul 20, 2012 3:27 UTC (Fri) by doogie (subscriber, #2445) [Link]
The only code that is bug free is that which is not yet written.
This isn't new Posted Jul 20, 2012 8:47 UTC (Fri) by liw (subscriber, #6379) [Link]
Code not yet written doesn't run, which is a bug. ;-)
This isn't new Posted Jul 20, 2012 9:24 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Code not written has no users and thus by definition it is perfect.
That's the uncertainty principle applied to software: bugs not observed do not exist (yet)
This isn't new Posted Jul 20, 2012 12:41 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Not so. I currently suspect there is at least one bug in part of my code that has never run, but I am attacking it later, when other bugs are fixed so code flow can reach that bug and prove its existence. This bug is in an indeterminate state. :)
Schneier's law of software? Posted Jul 22, 2012 4:40 UTC (Sun) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Sounds as if we have a programming equivalent of Schneier's Law:Any programmer can write a program so good he can't find any bugs in it.
Schneier's law of software? Posted Jul 23, 2012 17:45 UTC (Mon) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link] It pretty much already exists, and long predates Schneier's:"Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?"
|
|||||||||||||