Hi!
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 07:09:27PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
>> Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> > Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
>> > evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
>>
>>
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 07:09:27PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
> > evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
>
> Done.
>
> I'm very glad the new py
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:26:00PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:59:43AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
>> > This is the currently running evaluation (post-merge) compared with
>> > before the merge:
>> >
>> > https://hydra.gnu.org/eval/109381?compa
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:30:22PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Fair point, but results on hydra seem to be quite unreliable. So I
> though this is okay, since Ludo asked me to merge ASAP. maybe I
> misunderstood the exact meaning. And have been too impatient.
Yes, the Hydra interface can be con
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:26:00PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:59:43AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > This is the currently running evaluation (post-merge) compared with
> > before the merge:
> >
> > https://hydra.gnu.org/eval/109381?compare=109380&full=1#tabs-now-fail
Am 30.11.2016 um 17:59 schrieb Leo Famulari:
> Fair points, but the master branch is not where we put unfinished things
> to be fixed.
Fair point, but results on hydra seem to be quite unreliable. So I
though this is okay, since Ludo asked me to merge ASAP. maybe I
misunderstood the exact meaning.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:59:43AM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> This is the currently running evaluation (post-merge) compared with
> before the merge:
>
> https://hydra.gnu.org/eval/109381?compare=109380&full=1#tabs-now-fail
>
> Already there are several hundred new failures... I'm not sure what
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 30.11.2016 um 09:20 schrieb Danny Milosavljevic:
> > I think it depends on how much work fixing them is. If it were just five
> > minutes then I'd say leave it in master and fix the packages that failed.
> >
> > Otherwise revert.
Am 30.11.2016 um 09:20 schrieb Danny Milosavljevic:
> I think it depends on how much work fixing them is. If it were just five
> minutes then I'd say leave it in master and fix the packages that failed.
>
> Otherwise revert.
I strongly against reverting this! We already have a backlog of several
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> ng0 skribis:
>
>> Hartmut Goebel writes:
>>
>>> Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>> I'm
ng0 skribis:
> Hartmut Goebel writes:
>
>> Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>>> Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
>>> evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> I'm very glad the new python build system
Hartmut Goebel skribis:
> Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
>> evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
>
> Done.
>
> I'm very glad the new python build system is now in master. Thanks
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 04:12:00PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> There is still at least one new failure, borg.
Most of the test failures can be fixed by using the
(add-installed-pythonpath) procedure to ensure that the installed borg
can be found by the test suite.
But there are still 4 failures
Hi,
> There is still at least one new failure, borg. Are there more? If so, we
> should revert the changes until they are ready.
I think it depends on how much work fixing them is. If it were just five
minutes then I'd say leave it in master and fix the packages that failed.
Otherwise revert.
Hartmut Goebel writes:
> Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
>> evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
>
> Done.
>
> I'm very glad the new python build system is now in master. Thanks
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 07:09:27PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> > Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
> > evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
>
> Done.
There is still at least one
Am 29.11.2016 um 15:27 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Good. When you fix it (and other failures, if any), we can start a new
> evaluation or merge directly in master (the sooner the better!).
Done.
I'm very glad the new python build system is now in master. Thanks to
everybody who helped finishing t
17 matches
Mail list logo
