Hello everyone,
What is the rationale behind the distinction between stable and unstable
buildbots?
I ask that because the OpenBSD buildbot has failed compiling 3.0 for quite some
time, but since that buildbot was in the unstable bunch, it was not discovered
until someone filed a bug report for
2008/8/28 Barry Warsaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
bots we should trust to judge the health of the trees. I don't think the
current list needs to be set in stone, and in fact several of the stable
bots have had simple svn or other non-tree related problems for a while.
Maybe a good requisite to move
Facundo Batista facundobatista at gmail.com writes:
Maybe a good requisite to move a buildbot from unstable to stable is
to find a champion for it. I mean, something that can test on that
platform and cares enough about it to, or fix the issue
himself/herself, or find who broke it and bother
2008/8/28 Antoine Pitrou [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By that metric, I fear that the only remaining buildbots would be the
Linux/Windows x86/x64 ones. I'm not sure anyone here, for example, cares
really
Note that I meant to move from unstable to stable, starting from the
actual state, not to decide
