Hi Kris,

Thanks for that explanation. Much clearer now!

On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:44 -0500, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> Would it be more clear if I changed that to be:
> 
> 	First failure:  test (previously: no changes - not built)

Yes, adding previously is much better.
But maybe just put it on its own line?

  First failure this run     : test
  First failure previous run : no changes - not built

(It would be nice to have an entry also for the last time built and
where it failed that time.)

I think the real confusion comes from the "-".
Why not replace it with "so" (no changes so not built).
Or just spell it out completely "not built because no sources changed"
to be completely clear.

All the above is clearly nitpicking though. Now that I have read your
explanation I can easily parse any of the outputs.

Cheers,

Mark