From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23166 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2003 15:33:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 23159 invoked from network); 14 Sep 2003 15:33:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (24.131.133.249) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Sep 2003 15:33:49 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 6797532A822; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:33:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:33:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1 Message-ID: <20030914153347.GA1921@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <200309140048.h8E0mCaA166446@pimout4-ext.prodigy.net> <20030914005217.GA11423@redhat.com> <3F63F7F4.9090602@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F63F7F4.9090602@cwilson.fastmail.fm> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00876.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 01:09:08AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote: >> >>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html >> >> >>Are you saying that you'd like to be the package maintainer for this? >>That would be great! > >Snarkiness aside, Oh Magnate of Meanness, but I believe Tim was giving >you precisely what you asked for. Oh, get bent, Chuck. >You said the packages (gcc-3.3.1-1 and gcc-mingw-20030911-1) were >available for testing. Tim ran the testsuite, today, 13 Sep 2003. And >then reported the results. He also reported them to the gcc-testresults >mailing list -- but only sent "us" a link to that earlier report. > >Some more words from Tim would've been nice -- and keeping the response >in your original thread instead of starting a new one wouldn't've hurt, >either. > >But I really really hope you haven't invented a new rule where: > >"please test" >"okay, here's my results" >"great, thanks for volunteering to take over maint of the package" > >'cause that'd really cut down on the number of people who bother to read >'Avail for test' messages... Lets be clear here: I do run tests on gcc before releasing. I'm not particularly interested in having someone else run test releases, especially ones with no context. Do the tests indicate a regression from the last release? Are they better or are they worse? Test results without history, unless they show massive failures, are pretty much worthless. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/