2008/8/28 Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> By that metric, I fear that the only remaining buildbots would be the
> Linux/Windows x86/x64 ones. I'm not sure anyone here, for example, cares
> really
Note that I meant to "move from unstable to stable, starting from the
actual state", not to "d
Facundo Batista gmail.com> writes:
>
> Maybe a good requisite to move a buildbot from unstable to stable is
> to find a champion for it. I mean, something that can test on that
> platform and cares enough about it to, or fix the issue
> himself/herself, or find who broke it and bother the respons
2008/8/28 Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> bots we should "trust" to judge the health of the trees. I don't think the
> current list needs to be set in stone, and in fact several of the "stable"
> bots have had simple svn or other non-tree related problems for a while.
Maybe a good requisite
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 28, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
What is the rationale behind the distinction between "stable" and
"unstable"
buildbots?
I ask that because the OpenBSD buildbot has failed compiling 3.0 for
quite some
time, but since that build
Hello everyone,
What is the rationale behind the distinction between "stable" and "unstable"
buildbots?
I ask that because the OpenBSD buildbot has failed compiling 3.0 for quite some
time, but since that buildbot was in the "unstable" bunch, it was not discovered
until someone filed a bug report
