| 1 |
On Tuesday 01 January 2013 16:46:49 Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/01/2013 22:29, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there |
| 4 |
> > likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes |
| 5 |
> > end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an |
| 6 |
> > implicit yes. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It didn't survive. I'm not sure if all the bugs have been fixed now but |
| 9 |
> at some point I had to stop the tinderboxing because it was hitting |
| 10 |
> package failures, and then it was "fixed for next version" — which was |
| 11 |
> difficult to test. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So I would veto this _for the moment_. (I'd be happy to run another test |
| 14 |
> _after_ the glibc-2.17 one.) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
yes, we need real data first before we can make a proper decision |
| 17 |
-mike |
Archives