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
