Re: [xen-unstable test] 77945: regressions - FAIL

[Doug Goldstein <cardoe@cardoe.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1321 bytes --]

On 1/14/16 8:48 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.01.16 at 15:07, <cardoe@cardoe.com> wrote:
>> On 1/14/16 7:57 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 05:50 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> In any event - Doug, you should point out such dependencies in
>>>> the submission, e.g. after the first --- marker.
>>>
>>> Really they should have been in the same series in this case.
>>
>> They were all in the same thread. And were all acked. But the first one
>> against the tools shouldn't have been necessary, it should have still built.
> 
> Indeed I now see they were, but that's visible only in a threading
> capable mail client (which mine isn't). The patches should have
> been 1/3, 2/3, and 3/3, instead of the tools one being unnumbered
> and the hypervisor ones being 1/2 and 2/2. And the latest at the
> point where we had to revert the hypervisor ones (or when we
> were about to re-apply them) you should have shouted to tell us
> (me) that these got applied too early anyway.
> 
> Jan
> 

I believe the issue is some underlying assumptions between OSSTest and
the Xen code base and myself. I've submitted patches to OSSTest to right
the ship. That first patch in the thread shouldn't really be necessary.
It'd be nice to clean it up but not required.

-- 
Doug Goldstein


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 959 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel