From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Fix t3404 assumption that `wc -l` does not use whitespace. Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:23:19 -0400 Message-ID: <20080515112319.GA13038@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080427151610.GB57955@Hermes.local> <20080428094119.GA20499@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080513091143.GA26248@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080515112030.GA12781@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Brian Gernhardt , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Ralphson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 15 13:24:17 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JwbZG-0002pu-LN for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 May 2008 13:24:15 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753061AbYEOLXX (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:23:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753244AbYEOLXW (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:23:22 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:3407 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752974AbYEOLXV (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:23:21 -0400 Received: (qmail 24953 invoked by uid 111); 15 May 2008 11:23:20 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 May 2008 07:23:20 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 15 May 2008 07:23:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080515112030.GA12781@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:20:30AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > I have started tagging my auto-builds as you suggest. It should be easy > enough to push to a repo.or.cz repository. Although I'm not sure of the > utility of auto-publishing this information. Who is going to look at it? Also, if there is interest in an automated "this is now broken on platform X", I think the interesting thing is not "what was the last passing state" but rather "what is the output of 'make test' for the failing state." So: > I had assumed a workflow more like "it passes 99% of the time; in the > remaining 1%, the cron job kicks off a message to the owning user, who > then investigates and/or writes a bug report to the list." In that case, I think the interesting automation is making a problem report from a failed case. -Peff