From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10015 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2006 00:29:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 10007 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2006 00:29:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (HELO mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net) (204.127.131.115) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:29:22 +0000 Received: from dfw5rb41 (h-67-102-34-206.chcgilgm.dynamic.covad.net[67.102.34.206]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <200603290029201110050cove>; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:29:20 +0000 From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: "'The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List'" Subject: RE: The 20060324/20060326 snapshots hang on testcase Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <003201c652c7$d1f260d0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <04f001c65250$80c87540$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-talk-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-talk-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: The Cygwin-Talk Malingering List X-SW-Source: 2006-q1/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 > From: Dave Korn > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 4:15 AM > To: Thread TITTTL'd! > Subject: RE: The 20060324/20060326 snapshots hang on testcase > > On 28 March 2006 06:43, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > Oi Gary! This thread needs TITTTL'ing! > But think of the chickens Dave! Won't somebody think of the chickens?!?!? > >> From: Dave Korn > >> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:00 AM > >> To: cygwin@cygwin > >> Subject: RE: The 20060324/20060326 snapshots hang on testcase > >> > >> On 27 March 2006 04:04, Volker Quetschke wrote: > >> > >>> The newest 20060324/20060326 snapshots started to hang on the > >>> following testcase. Note, I only tried the following versions: > >>> > >>> release 1.5.19 no hang > >>> snapshot 20060306 no hang > >>> snapshot 20060324 hangs > >>> snapshot 20060326 hangs > >> > >> CVS 20060317: no hang. > >> > >> [ Just to help refine the search a bit. ] > >> > > > > Ahem, without resolution to the minute that's going to help > how again? > > > > Why would you need resolution to the minute unless someone > was making changes in /src/winsup equally frequently? I had > a data point that was handily in between the 6th and the > 24th, in fact it was more or less a binary chop of the range > that had still to be reduced and halved it! > Yeah, to you and me maybe that makes total sense. But to somebody who can track down and fix a bug he and/or she didn't even know existed PLUS post two emails about it in less than nineteen minutes, and still thinks that's too slow, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IT IS NOT SIR! Your binary choppery would have only reduced that to 9.5 minutes - STILL NOT FAST ENOUGH I SAY! Had you had at least a shred of human decency and had narrowed this chasm of time down to the minute wherein the issue presented itself, you would have reduced this post/duplicate/find/fix/post cycle time to: 8 days * 86400 secs/day... Carry the five... One-over... TWENTY SEVEN MICROSECONDS! How DARE you sir! > > cheers, > DaveK > -- > Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... > -- Gary R. Van Sickle