Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:33:47 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1
Message-ID: <20030914153347.GA1921@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <200309140048 DOT h8E0mCaA166446 AT pimout4-ext DOT prodigy DOT net> <20030914005217 DOT GA11423 AT redhat DOT com> <3F63F7F4 DOT 9090602 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3F63F7F4.9090602@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 01:09:08AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
>>
>>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html
>>
>>
>>Are you saying that you'd like to be the package maintainer for this?
>>That would be great!
>
>Snarkiness aside, Oh Magnate of Meanness, but I believe Tim was giving 
>you precisely what you asked for.

Oh, get bent, Chuck.

>You said the packages (gcc-3.3.1-1 and gcc-mingw-20030911-1) were 
>available for testing.  Tim ran the testsuite, today, 13 Sep 2003.  And 
>then reported the results.  He also reported them to the gcc-testresults 
>mailing list -- but only sent "us" a link to that earlier report.
>
>Some more words from Tim would've been nice -- and keeping the response 
>in your original thread instead of starting a new one wouldn't've hurt, 
>either.
>
>But I really really hope you haven't invented a new rule where:
>
>"please test"
>"okay, here's my results"
>"great, thanks for volunteering to take over maint of the package"
>
>'cause that'd really cut down on the number of people who bother to read 
>'Avail for test' messages...

Lets be clear here: I do run tests on gcc before releasing.  I'm not
particularly interested in having someone else run test releases,
especially ones with no context.  Do the tests indicate a regression
from the last release?  Are they better or are they worse?

Test results without history, unless they show massive failures, are
pretty much worthless.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/