From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20040 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2016 16:31:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19943 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2016 16:31:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=shut, our X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 3 recipients X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:30:51 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1asYY4-0004dd-8N from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:30:48 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:30:46 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1asYY1-0005rZ-Hc; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:30:45 +0000 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:31:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Bill Schmidt CC: , , , Pat Haugen , "Bill Seurer on genoa (POWER8)" Subject: Re: Please block seurer@linux.vnet.ibm.com from gcc-regression In-Reply-To: <201604191351.u3JDpXp3030885@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <201604191351.u3JDpXp3030885@d01av01.pok.ibm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2016-q2/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote: > We're sorry for the problems. Bill was updating our scripts to enable the > gcc-6-branch for testing, and unfortunately things went massively wrong. > This has been shut down, and we're taking several precautions to ensure > nothing like this happens again. There should be no further bad messages > after the ones on Sunday, so once those are cleared up it should be safe to > re-enable the sending email address. Overseers, the messages are still coming through (e.g. ), so we still need the block until the mail queue in question has emptied. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com