Richard Soderberg wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Richard Foley wrote: > > > a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following (nearly inherent) > > hints: > > > category=dailybuild > > status=open|closed > > severity=fatal|high > > ack=yes|no > > Builds that have no test failures could be ok reports, too. > Builds that don't successfully compile get a severity=fatal. > > Very nice. Is 'dailybuild' appropriate, or should that read something else? I guess it would be sensible if it was something along the lines of the mailing list address name (smokers|testpilots|...) for consistency. Ciao -- Richard Foley Ciao: shorter than Aufwiedersehen
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: perl v5.7.0 +DEVEL8840 on ... Richard Soderberg
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: perl v5.7.0 +DEVEL884... H . Merijn Brand
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: perl v5.7.0 +DEVE... Richard Foley
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: perl v5.7.0 +... Richard Soderberg
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: perl v5.7... Richard Foley
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: perl... H . Merijn Brand
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: ... Richard Foley
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not ... H . Merijn Brand
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not ... Richard Foley
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not ... H . Merijn Brand
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not ... Richard Foley
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not ... H . Merijn Brand
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] NotO... Richard Foley
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not OK: ... Richard Soderberg
- Re: [ID 20010219.012] Not ... H . Merijn Brand
