On 12/5/12 1:37 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 12/5/2012 2:57 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 12/5/2012 2:32 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to
On 12/7/2012 1:05 PM, Gerald Combs wrote:
On 12/5/12 1:37 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 12/5/2012 2:57 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 12/5/2012 2:32 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
Thanks,
Evan
[1] https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8045
On 12/5/2012 2:32 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
Thanks,
Evan
I agree completely: As I've going through the process of
Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
There's only one buildbot doing the fuzz testing, isn't there? (It's
the Clang-Code-Analysis
Jeff Morriss wrote:
Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
There's only one buildbot doing the fuzz testing, isn't there? (It's
the
On 12/5/2012 2:57 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 12/5/2012 2:32 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
In cases like bug 8045 [1], it would have been handy for it to say in
the report somewhere which build-bot (version and OS) had found the
error... is that reasonably easy to do?
I agree completely: As I've going
