On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote:
> Well, yes, often. But...and I'm being serious now...it's good form to
> send a request for bisection back to the bug reporter when you suspect
> that the bug might be sensitive to environmental factors that are
> tricky to identify and replicate. That way you avoid getting ratholed
> by an inability to reproduce the bug locally.
>
I went through the bisect, starting from a commit of 17th Dec, and kept
seeing "good", till git told me that the bad commit was:
root@ntpmon:~/ntpsec# git bisect good
56630d4119ffeddd356a937c449026161c3f384b is the first bad commit
commit 56630d4119ffeddd356a937c449026161c3f384b
Author: Eric S. Raymond <e...@thyrsus.com>
Date: Tue Jan 26 04:34:46 2016 -0500
Fix a typo in a Coverity annotation.
:040000 040000 6411b1f4c3f968ce071a2f44ee89b9bfd84ecc76
4477eca5cfafa21e690f888e4c129ff9194c46a5 M libparse
Luckily, just before I did a victory dance, I checked out HEAD again; and
did a waf configure; waf install . And I can no longer see the problem;
all is well.
> (And you *always* suspect tricky environmental factors when DNS lookups
> are involved. That is, if you weren't born yesterday.)
>
I assure you (for whatever little it is worth), that *nothing* changed.
Well, I am not sure I did a waf configure before the install earlier this
evening, if I can blame that.
Apologies for the noise, and thanks for the chance to learn something new.
-- Sanjeev "you can call me Betty now" Gupta
--
Sanjeev Gupta
+65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
