On Tue, 2014-09-23 at 13:00 -0400, Gary Gregory wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:40 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> But as I said before you are welcome to extend release tools to > > >>generate > > >>> whatever reports you desire. > > >> > > >>Just because I report an issue with a process does not mean I have to > > >>be the one to fix it. > > >> > > > > > > Right. Naturally it is better to have other people do useless work than > > do useless work yourself. > > > > It is not useless work. > > The RM must - and reviewers should - run the RAT and Clirr checks. > > This needs to be documented as part of the release voting. > > > > I agree that the RM and reviewers must run or check these reports. > It sure would waste less time if the reports were provided or instructions > provided (I added some instructions to BUILDING.txt files yesterday FWIW). > > Gary >
Gary As both of us just found our reports generated by RM and those generated locally by a reviewer may not always match. What really matters is whether or not the source tarball compiles and passes the checks for _you_. Reports published by RM are useless and a waste of RM time. If something is still unclear we should work on improving BUILDING.txt instructions. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
