Not OK: perl v5.7.0 +DEVEL8840 on i386-freebsd 4.0-release #3447
Comments
From [email protected]Daily build and smoke test by smokingjacket v0.01. Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed lib/db-btree.t 255 65280 157 14 8.92% 27-29, 48-49, 149-157 Flags: Site configuration information for perl v5.7.0: Configured by kevin at Mon Feb 19 18:33:22 EST 2001. Summary of my perl5 (revision 5.0 version 7 subversion 0) configuration: Locally applied patches: @INC for perl v5.7.0: Environment for perl v5.7.0: Complete configuration data for perl v5.7.0: Author='' |
From @TuxOn Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:52:46 -0500 (EST), kevin@frodo.perlguy.com wrote:
Is it wrong to presume that people/builders/testers/smokers building bleadperl Why is it that if Jarkko /explicitly/ tells that db-* fails with the latest A PLEA TO ALL: *READ* what Jarkko writes as comments with the latest tarballs and *DO NOT* At this time I do /not/ have time to mark them duplicate, but think about the Kevin, this is nothing personal, but you are number X to report the same |
From @floatingatollOn Tue, 20 Feb 2001, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
Not specifically, no.
FWIW, smokingjacket rsyncs perl-current - unrelated to the tarball.
Unfortunately, I'm not aware of code that allows me to easily seperate
How, then, should we be doing daily build failures? It sounds as if The issue here seems to be that as we automate more and more the process Suggestions? R. |
From @TuxOn Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:21:44 -0800 (PST), Richard Soderberg <rs@crystalflame.net> wrote:
As smokers is starting, we *do* indeed need another way to report the test Do we [ ] 1. Need another DB?
|
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:26:07AM +0100, H.Merijn Brand (h.m.brand@hccnet.nl) spew-ed forth:
No (and I do read p5p).
Because smokingjacket does not look to see if what things fail on have already
Maybe we need (as has been brought up) somewhere else to put the smoking
Nothing taken personally :) I, for now, have taken the smokejacket script out Cheers,
|
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Kevin Meltzer <perlguy@perlguy.com> whis Would it be worth changing perlbug so that if it is a smoke test, it -spp |
From @floatingatollHmm. I could live with that. Makes finding them in the bugdb real easy, <flamebait> R. On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
|
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 10:31:15AM -0500, Stephen P. Potter (spp@spotter.yi.org) spew-ed forth:
That would likely be helpful. Would this cause any issues in the cases where Cheers, |
From @floatingatollLegit non-dup bugs will not be part of an automatic build report - they R. On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 perlguy@perlguy.com wrote:
|
From @TuxOn Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:52:01 -0800 (PST) Richard Soderberg <rs@crystalflame.net> wrote:
There's more to consider + Would it be helpful to have smokers `register' their testing machines, so + Would it be helpful to have a stampfile other than .patch that indicates the
|
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]"H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
By all means have another bugdb. _IF_ you do want to continue to use the current bugdb, you could category=dailybuild status=open|closed severity=fatal|high etc. My point is that you should be able to set the category to whatever you Please note that the address won't work until I set up a .qmail pointer, I don't know if that's useful to you or not, but at least you then have ??? Ciao |
From @floatingatollOn Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Richard Foley wrote:
ack=yes|no Builds that have no test failures could be ok reports, too. Very nice. R. |
From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]Richard Soderberg wrote:
Is 'dailybuild' appropriate, or should that read something else? I guess it would be sensible if it was something along the lines of the Ciao |
From @schwernI'm coming in a little late to this conversation, seems like you've I should have anticipated that perlbug might get flooded by this Anyhow, just a few points-of-order... On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:21:44AM -0800, Richard Soderberg wrote:
Most smokers will *not* be active readers of p5p (I don't). Most This is why failure reports kept streaming in, but it looks like
The interesting modifications were done a few days ago. :) The test |
|
@jhi - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
From @jhiI'm closing off some of the older Not OK reports. If you still have |
|
@jhi - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved' |
Migrated from rt.perl.org#5861 (status was 'resolved')
Searchable as RT5861$
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: