| 1 |
On 1 January 2013 16:46, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> 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 |
> -- |
| 17 |
> Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes |
| 18 |
> flameeyes@×××××××××.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I was unaware that the tinderbox run hadn't finished. I definetly |
| 22 |
think it should be fully run through with pkgconf before we fully |
| 23 |
consider switching the virtual. All the bugs that have been found were |
| 24 |
fixed, last i checked, only 2 were not verified fixed, but I could not |
| 25 |
reproduce and after ~2 months of asking people to verify whether the |
| 26 |
bugs still existed on pkgconf-0.8.9, no one had replied with the |
| 27 |
results of a test, so i closed them. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you could run it through the tinderbox again Diego, that would be |
| 30 |
great and we can finish evaluating based on those results. |
Archives