Re: (link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-rcm at cygwin dot com>]

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 01:09:08AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 05:48:11PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
>>
>>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00497.html
>>
>>
>>Are you saying that you'd like to be the package maintainer for this?
>>That would be great!
>
>Snarkiness aside, Oh Magnate of Meanness, but I believe Tim was giving 
>you precisely what you asked for.

Oh, get bent, Chuck.

>You said the packages (gcc-3.3.1-1 and gcc-mingw-20030911-1) were 
>available for testing.  Tim ran the testsuite, today, 13 Sep 2003.  And 
>then reported the results.  He also reported them to the gcc-testresults 
>mailing list -- but only sent "us" a link to that earlier report.
>
>Some more words from Tim would've been nice -- and keeping the response 
>in your original thread instead of starting a new one wouldn't've hurt, 
>either.
>
>But I really really hope you haven't invented a new rule where:
>
>"please test"
>"okay, here's my results"
>"great, thanks for volunteering to take over maint of the package"
>
>'cause that'd really cut down on the number of people who bother to read 
>'Avail for test' messages...

Lets be clear here: I do run tests on gcc before releasing.  I'm not
particularly interested in having someone else run test releases,
especially ones with no context.  Do the tests indicate a regression
from the last release?  Are they better or are they worse?

Test results without history, unless they show massive failures, are
pretty much worthless.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/