Re: Automated build-and-test summary report (2007/05/23)

[Kris Van Hees <kris.van.hees@oracle.com>]

No one is denying any contribution you and others at Red Hat have made
with regard to running Frysk on FC6.  Nevertheless you used part of my
message as a trampoline to provide a statement of credit, lacking any
form of recognition of contributions by anyone other than Red Hat.
Must we therefore conclude that bugs reports like #227952 and
#232800 (in Red Hat's bugzilla, against the FC6 kernel) and numerous
discussions on #frysk are a figment of my imagination?

You and everyone on the team (past and present) deserve credit for the
work you do and have done.  I never have and never will deny that.  But
as a professional courtesy, I'd expect the same in return.

	Cheers,
	Kris

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:31:46AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Kris Van Hees wrote:
> >Throughout the months the system has been in development, and then
> >became fully functioning, we suffered through quite a few iterations of
> >finding kernel problems relating to utrace.  More often than not, these
> >were problems that others had not reported (either due to not testing on
> >those configurations or otherwise).  We got quite a bit of traction on
> >that and largely due to Roland's work, the situation improved a whole
> >lot.
> >  
> 
> To clarify.
> 
> The improvements to Frysk on Fedora Core 6 largely came about as a 
> consequence of bugs identified by Roland, Moller, and myself when 
> testing on RHEL 5 (the kernels were relatively close).  For instance, 
> the need to re-implement the event-loop, that Red Hat undertook, was 
> motivated by these bugs.
> 
> Andrew
>