(link to) gcc-testsuite results for cygming-special 3.3.1
Sun Sep 14 15:33:00 GMT 2003
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:
>>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,
>But I really really hope you haven't invented a new rule where:
>"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.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin