On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 07:58:32PM -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuyshanw...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. All it takes is bookmarking the site, checking it whenever
there's a release, and reporting any broken examples. However,
nobody is willing to
[CC to -devel]
(nobody checks the regression tests for each release, for example
-- and that's trivially done with a web browser!)
That reminds me of an idea I recently had: Wouldn't it be possible to
automatically generate a sort of checksum for each regression-test
output-file and compare
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 17. August 2009 16:08:36 schrieb Michael Käppler:
[CC to -devel]
(nobody checks the regression tests for each release, for example
-- and that's trivially done with a web browser!)
That reminds me of an idea I recently had: Wouldn't
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 05:17:08PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Am Montag, 17. August 2009 16:08:36 schrieb Michael Käppler:
(nobody checks the regression tests for each release, for example
-- and that's trivially done with a web browser!)
That reminds me of an idea I recently
Graham Percival wrote Monday, August 17, 2009 10:35 PM
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 05:17:08PM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer
wrote:
Am Montag, 17. August 2009 16:08:36 schrieb Michael Käppler:
(nobody checks the regression tests for each release, for
example
-- and that's trivially done with
2009/8/17 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
Yes. All it takes is bookmarking the site, checking it whenever
there's a release, and reporting any broken examples. However,
nobody is willing to commit to do this. 15 minutes whenever
there's a release, which happens at most once every
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:55:37PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
2009/8/17 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
Yes. All it takes is bookmarking the site, checking it whenever
there's a release, and reporting any broken examples. However,
nobody is willing to commit to do this. 15
2009/8/17 Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca:
I think that's normal for a .0 release.
I assumed the same, but 2.12.0 has results against 2.11.66 (OK, that
didn't officially exist since I made a mistake doing a version bump
before 2.12) and 2.11.65.
Oh, yet another problem with the lack
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Graham
Percivalgra...@percival-music.ca wrote:
Graham was referring to the fact that nobody seem to bother about looking at
those automatically-created regression results before or after a release.
Yes. All it takes is bookmarking the site, checking it
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuyshanw...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. All it takes is bookmarking the site, checking it whenever
there's a release, and reporting any broken examples. However,
nobody is willing to commit to do this. 15 minutes whenever
there's a release, which
10 matches
Mail list logo
