From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22090 invoked by alias); 30 May 2007 21:10:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 22080 invoked by uid 22791); 30 May 2007 21:10:04 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com (HELO rgminet01.oracle.com) (148.87.113.118) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 May 2007 21:10:02 +0000 Received: from rgmsgw01.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw01.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.51]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id l4UL9IwF007800; Wed, 30 May 2007 15:09:18 -0600 Received: from ca-server1.us.oracle.com (ca-server1.us.oracle.com [139.185.48.5]) by rgmsgw01.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id l4UL9G85024130 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 May 2007 15:09:16 -0600 Received: from kvanhees by ca-server1.us.oracle.com with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HtVPw-0007hG-1j; Wed, 30 May 2007 14:09:16 -0700 Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:17:00 -0000 From: Kris Van Hees To: Andrew Cagney Cc: frysk@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Automated build-and-test summary report (2007/05/23) Message-ID: <20070530210915.GE30260@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> References: <20070523141034.GA16276@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <46545CB3.6000509@redhat.com> <20070523214658.GB16276@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <4655CCF6.8080607@redhat.com> <20070524192441.GC16276@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <465B262C.5090104@redhat.com> <465C6197.6030405@redhat.com> <20070530011241.GB14523@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> <465D7CC2.9080603@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <465D7CC2.9080603@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00225.txt.bz2 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 >