Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
People call it "Soak Testing" when they test electronics don't they? [EMAIL PROTECTED]? nah - Original Message - From: "Stephen P. Potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:56 PM Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test > Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > whispered: > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > | PIT - Perl Intergration Testers > | > | Alan Burlison > > Not to pick on Alan, God knows he's been doing us all a real favor lately > with the leaktest stuff. But can we please stop crossposting this thread > to -announce? For that matter, does it really need to go to 7 individuals, > and 5 lists? > > -spp
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | PIT - Perl Intergration Testers | | Alan Burlison Not to pick on Alan, God knows he's been doing us all a real favor lately with the leaktest stuff. But can we please stop crossposting this thread to -announce? For that matter, does it really need to go to 7 individuals, and 5 lists? -spp
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PIT - Perl Intergration Testers Alan Burlison
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
abigail [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth: *> *>What are you suggesting here? God doesn't like elves? There's no place *>in heaven for hobbits? Everyone is equal in the face of God, except *>dwarves? Christ doesn't wash the feet of trolls? Jesus didn't die so *>Gollums sins could be forgiven? People haggle over words when they've run out of better things to haggle over. -- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Being a smoker is the closest thing to being a leper without being a leper one can get. People are already being denied transplants and other heathcare if they happen to be smokers. Soon, I imagine they'll do the same for the overweight/obese, the chronically inactive and other such illnesses. Holy Fire by Bruce Sterling is recommended reading. Smoking evokes a lot of strong feelings in people either due to the loss of a loved one, allergies to said smoke, etc. It's more addictive than heroin, smells bad, aids motility and is smashing with coffee, but it isn't something one wishes to encourage anymore than too much Perl hacking into the wee hours. Schwern, change the name pretty please and let's all find a better war to wage eh? :) e.
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
"H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Because "PerlBuilder" is a commercial product. It's a poor quality competitor that I wouldn't recommend to anybody. If you put the words together like this, you'll create an accidental association. p
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:40:01AM -0800, Jonathan Atzger wrote: > > If I were a fundamentalist Christian, would it be > right for me to complain about Tolkein quotes buried > in the Perl source code on the grounds that they > offend my personal beliefs? What are you suggesting here? God doesn't like elves? There's no place in heaven for hobbits? Everyone is equal in the face of God, except dwarves? Christ doesn't wash the feet of trolls? Jesus didn't die so Gollums sins could be forgiven? I'm shocked. Abigail
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
jezz, this is nutso. the term smokers that schwern chose refers to smoking code as in testing it to see if it blows up in a blaze of flame and smoke. in the hardware world powering up a box or power supply for the first time is known as a smoke test (you don't want to see any smoke then). the name has nothing to do with tobacco or human smoking. so drop this thread. smokers is a fine name choice for a severe testbed system. does everyone get it? smoke is an established term in the testing world. uri -- Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.sysarch.com SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting The Perl Books Page --- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books The Best Search Engine on the Net -- http://www.northernlight.com
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:50:04AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote: > At 15:45 + 2001.02.19, Tim Bunce wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > >> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > >> > > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > >> > > > >> > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders? > >> > > >> > Same here. Testers? > >> > >> perl-builders? > > > >Or to be more whimsical: > > > > perl-night-shift > > perl-night-build > > > >It probably needs a name that'll both indicate its role and avoid confusion > >with 'porters' (who do most of the 'building' to the untrained eye). > > I dunno; I dislike smoking, but I like the idea of "smoking-camels" or > something. :) Umm, I recall something from my geography lessons about nomadic tribes smoking camel dung. I can't remember now if it was on the fire or in the mouth (yeach). Anyway... perl-dung perl-droppings Umm, maybe not. Er... perl-smoke-trail (thinking of the night-by-night progress, kind'a) I dunno. I'm off... Tim.
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
> > > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > > > > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders? > > > > Same here. Testers? > > perl-builders? I vote for perl-builders &Vadim;
RE: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
I agree with Johan... Fabio. -Original Message- From: Johan Vromans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. -- Johan
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > > > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > > > > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders? > > > > Same here. Testers? > > perl-builders? Or to be more whimsical: perl-night-shift perl-night-build It probably needs a name that'll both indicate its role and avoid confusion with 'porters' (who do most of the 'building' to the untrained eye). Tim.
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
--- Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > -- Johan I don't mean to be rude, but what does this have to do with Perl? How many times must worthwhile projects break down because people start to allow bickering and irrelevancies to dominate? We are all here (at least I think) because we love Perl. If I were a fundamentalist Christian, would it be right for me to complain about Tolkein quotes buried in the Perl source code on the grounds that they offend my personal beliefs? Personally, I have problems with smokers, too. But I think that "smokers" was merely intended to be humorous and I am not so thin-skinned that I can't deal with it. Please, please do not start a trend of allowing people to start objecting to things because they offend their sensibilities. If someone wants to complain that a particular feature of the regexp engine (for example) is improperly implemented, that's okay. That's about Perl and making it better. Complaining about "smokers" does nothing. __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
Sigh. That's right. Let's start this off by being politically correct. We don't want any humor creeping in here. --- Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > -- Johan __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > > > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > > > > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders? > > > > Same here. Testers? > > perl-builders? Not funny. p
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
No. This is silly. End of discussion. PS I'm also an active non-smoker. -- Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders? > > Same here. Testers? perl-builders? -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders? Same here. Testers? -- H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://www.amsterdam.pm.org/) using perl-5.005.03, 5.6.0, 5.6.1, 5.7.1 & 623 on HP-UX 10.20 & 11.00, AIX 4.2 AIX 4.3, WinNT 4, Win2K pro & WinCE 2.11 often with Tk800.022 &/| DBD-Unify ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/languages/perl/CPAN/authors/id/H/HM/HMBRAND/
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote: > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. Likewise. What's wrong with builders? > -- Johan -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: ANNOUNCE: smokers@perl.org Discussion of perl's daily build and smoke test
As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name. -- Johan
