Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:40:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> > Requeue requests are part of handling logs... You get a failed log, you
>> > analyse it to say "oh, that's a transient error due to other things"
>> > then you requeue it... If that analysis comes from reading a mail,
>> > great.
>> So why was the request ignored for a month? Why did my email result
>> in no action, twice, not even a response?
>
> I've told you what I'd need to answer that question already.
>
>> Perhaps you don't know the answer to these questions. But then how
>> can you so surely assert that there is no problem?
>
> Easy: the best tools we've got to judge whether buildds are keeping up
> are the buildd graphs which indicate that with the exception of m68k
> and arm (hrm, and possibly hppa), all our ports are doing extremely well.
>
> Although I guess that's different from saying there's "no problem" if
> you're being pedantically literal. I have no interest in that sort of
> discussion though. *shrug*
So i386 never has a problem no matter how screwed up the buildd is?
The stats will always show a very high % for it no matter what.
The only thing the graph shows is the general case, the overall
performance of the arch. Not if a package has fallen through the
cracks and is ignored or forgotten.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
