Re: [releng_4 tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha

2003-08-17 Thread Ed Hall
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:02:18 -0700, Andy Sparrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The same thing started in -PORTS quite some time ago, where I find > > > personally find that it generates more [EMAIL PROTECTED] than the real traffic > > > at > > > times. > > > > You're entitled to your opinio

Re: [releng_4 tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha

2003-08-17 Thread Andy Sparrow
> > The same thing started in -PORTS quite some time ago, where I find > > personally find that it generates more [EMAIL PROTECTED] than the real traffic at > > times. > > You're entitled to your opinion, Thanks, I will clarify it further for you. > but since you've never had to deal > with t

Re: [releng_4 tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha

2003-08-17 Thread pan
>You're entitled to your opinion, but since you've never had to deal >with the flood of support requests when INDEX builds were broken by >careless committers before I started the automated tinderbox, I'd >suggest you try to consider it from point of view of those of us who >are actually involved

Re: [releng_4 tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha

2003-08-16 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 06:00:26PM -0700, Andy Sparrow wrote: > The same thing started in -PORTS quite some time ago, where I find > personally find that it generates more [EMAIL PROTECTED] than the real traffic at > times. You're entitled to your opinion, but since you've never had to deal wit