On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 11:40 -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 08:13:38PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 09:09 -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > > > Agreed; if there is no change there is no information content, and > > > the list could be overwhelmed with messages that are near-duplicates. > > > I suppose you could do comparisons of the .sum files to determine if > > > there has been a change. > > > > There's the information that the CFARM build succeeded and that there is > > no regression on the new revision. Not sending an email would mean > > you cannot distinguish between a failed build, a not working CFARM and > > everything is fine (by looking only at gcc-testresults). > > Right, but gcc-testresults is not cfarm-status, it's gcc-testresults. > > That information could be presented somewhere else, like with Mozilla's > Tinderbox system. A web page could be kept updated with the latest > revision number that built successfully, together with a summary of the > latest tests.
I'm perfectly okay with not sending any email to gcc-testresults from CFARM and put that information somewhere else. Is that the consensus? Laurent
