From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-42432-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10958 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2001 17:39:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 10937 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2001 17:39:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (204.176.20.19)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2001 17:39:38 -0000
Received: from crone.synopsys.com (crone.synopsys.com [146.225.7.23])
	by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C2702DBF8; Fri,  7 Dec 2001 09:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atrus.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by crone.synopsys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA01035;
	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:38:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by atrus.synopsys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA11161;
	Fri, 7 Dec 2001 09:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200112071738.JAA11161@atrus.synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: Build status page:Succes and failures.
To: caligula@cam029208.student.utwente.nl (Gcc k6 testing account)
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 09:40:00 -0000
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112071542330.6221-100000@cam029208.student.utwente.nl> from "Gcc k6 testing account" at Dec 07, 2001 04:01:20 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2

Martijn Uffing writes:

> I'm following the build status page discussion and here are my 2 cents.
> 
> When 3.0.2 was released I reported a succesfull build on 
> k6-redhat-linux-gnu and submitted the testresults with 
> test_summary.(October 24). Following this discussion,I tried to build 3.0 
> and 3.0.1. Those bootstraps were NOT succesfull.
> 
> So here's the summary on the k6 side.
> 
> gcc-3.0    -->No bootstrap.
> gcc-3.0.1  -->No bootstrap.
> gcc-3.0.2  -->Succsesfull bootstrap.
> 
> gcc-3.0.x-cvs  -->Succesfull bootstrap.
> gcc-3.1-cvs    -->Succesfull bootstrap.
> 
> All this with:
> gcc      :     2.96-97
> binutils :     2.11.90.0.8
> glibc    :     2.2.4

Janis, given this I repeat my request that the build status page be
specific about which releases were tested.  I realize that you may not
have some of the details that came in before, but at least from here
on out the information should not be thrown away.

Also, the page should not assume no regressions (that is, we should not
assume that because 3.0.1 was tested, we know that 3.0.2 works, unless
we have a report confirming that it does).

Joe