On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 10:53:39AM -0500, Donald J. O'Neill wrote: > On Monday 28 August 2006 10:27, LI Xin wrote: > > > > Well, the world is imperfect, and sometimes the automated bots run by us > > will not be able to explicitly point out which port is getting problem... > > > > All the purpose of this sort of letters (e.g. tinderbox build failure > > reports, etc) is in the hope that someone can pick up the work and fix > > it before users actually being hit by a bug and thus save their time. > > In other words, this is something like "Look out! Ports tree have some > > *known* trouble now and please do not report problems (without patch, of > > course) until things gets fixed." > > > > Cheers, > > Thank you for your reply. > > Tinderbox failure reports I understand. I guess this type of report goes into > my ignore category, unless I'm willing to help of course. Not in this case > though, I only have 6-STABLE systems. > This is also broken on 6.x. That only 4.x is reported is an artefact of the script that tests 4.x, 5.x, 6.x and 7.x in that order and only reports the first failure.
But you're right, for most people, these mails fall in the same category as the tinderbox mails. You can note that there is an error in the tree, but probably not do much else with it. Cheers, -erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Security is like an onion. (o_ _o) It's made up of several layers \\\_\ /_/// [EMAIL PROTECTED] And it makes you cry. <____) (____> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgppPRlL4bUVK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
