12 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-sparc64Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Mike Barcroft | Feb 20, 2003 1:13 am | |
| Mike Barcroft | Feb 23, 2003 12:37 am | |
| Mike Barcroft | Feb 23, 2003 8:37 am | |
| Mike Barcroft | Feb 25, 2003 5:36 am | |
| Mike Barcroft | Feb 26, 2003 12:51 pm | |
| Mike Barcroft | Feb 27, 2003 1:50 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Feb 27, 2003 2:24 pm | |
| David Schultz | Feb 27, 2003 3:29 pm | |
| Jens Rehsack | Feb 27, 2003 3:35 pm | |
| Mike Barcroft | Mar 2, 2003 9:16 pm | |
| Ruslan Ermilov | Mar 3, 2003 1:57 am | |
| Mike Barcroft | Mar 3, 2003 5:17 am |
| Subject: | Re: sparc64 tinderbox failure | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Jens Rehsack (rehs...@liwing.de) | |
| Date: | Feb 27, 2003 3:35:30 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-sparc64 | |
David Schultz wrote:
Thus spake Doug Barton <Dou...@FreeBSD.ORG>:
I made the suggestion in another forum that we create subscription lists for these tinderbox messages so that those interested could see them, and those not interested would not need to filter them out.
Is anyone else interested in doing it that way? Or is this a solution looking for a problem?
I think most people who track -CURRENT are subscribed to current@ precisely because they want to know when things break. Similarly for -STABLE, but that's a moot point because -STABLE doesn't break very often. For people who don't agree with this, there's always procmail; the reports aren't all that frequent that filtering is some sort of burden. I do, however, like the idea of consolidating them and providing more concise summaries.
I agree. Even sometimes I hate got tinderbox message, in most cases I'm very interested.
Jens
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message