On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 10:21:56PM +0100, Richard B. Kreckel wrote: > On Sat, 6 Mar 2004, Colin Watson wrote: > > Richard, do you read debian-release? If not, it would be helpful if you > > had a Mail-Followup-To: header or similar saying so. > > In other free software ecosystems it is customary to CC the poster when > replying. Even if he/she is known to be the list administrator.
Not the case here: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct I'll try to remember in your case, though, as I'd rather not have the argument here (it's somewhat long-running). > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Colin Watson wrote: > > manual attention sometimes. The reason this doesn't show up in > > update_output is slightly unfortunate: for performance reasons, the > > testing script only shows problems on the first architecture in > > alphabetical order, and qalculate was only in testing for i386 and ia64, > > unlike ginac which was in testing for alpha. > > It's not so easy not to comment on an optimization which discards valuable > information. In fact, the crucial piece of information, in this case. > This is not the first time people have found the output irritating beyond > hope because of missing clues. Sigh. It was necessary when ftp-master was auric; at one point (although pre-reimplementation-in-Python, I think) it was known for the testing run to take more than a day, which wasn't too useful. On newraff that's not a problem, although you'd have to get aj to comment on the memory implications of discarding this optimization. I do agree that testing i386 first would be helpful, considering the magic hack that gets applied to Architecture: all packages. Anyway, if you have problems understanding what's going on in the future, please feel free to ask debian-release. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
