On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:37 , John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > This is very non-obvious to the public at large (e.g. there was no public > response to one group's inquiry about the second ATF import for example). > Also, given that you had no idea that sgf@ and obrien@ were working on > importing NetBSD's bmake as a prerequisite for ATF, it seems that whatever > discussions were held were not very detailed at best. I think it would be > good to have the various folks working on ATF to at least summarize the > current state of things and sketch out some sort of plan or roadmap for > future > work in a public forum (such as atf@, though a summary mail would be quite > appropriate for arch@).
I take partial responsibility for the privacy of the discussions hitherto. My apologies, it should have be moved out onto a public list sooner. But, I would like to drive this to a solution on arch@. We don't have an atf@, but we do have a test@ and testing@. We have too many mailing lists already, so let's finish this up here if we can and then continue talking on testing@. Best, George _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
