On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 2:40 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> and all these with release|debug permutations. Quite a lot resources,
> but we don't care, we should have enough resources for now, right?
No, not even close.
fyi: last 7 days we did 271 gerrit build, so 813 build
we also did 717 tinderb
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 07:18 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:54 AM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 16:51 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:51 PM, David Ostrovsky
> >> wrote:
> >> >> And your patch 8 would have failed the sam
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:54 AM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 16:51 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:51 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>> >> And your patch 8 would have failed the same way on tb58/tb59/tb60
>> >
> [...]
>
>> The release builder have the so
On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 16:51 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:51 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> And your patch 8 would have failed the same way on tb58/tb59/tb60
> >
[...]
> The release builder have the so-called 'stale' tool chain.
> Just like in real-life and like othe
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:49 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:51:01PM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> Do not get me wrong. I applaud the effort to get rid of boost if we
>> can.. that is a big and expensive dep.
>
> Except that I doubt we'll ever be able to do that. b
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 04:51:01PM -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Do not get me wrong. I applaud the effort to get rid of boost if we
> can.. that is a big and expensive dep.
Except that I doubt we'll ever be able to do that. boost is used not
only by libreoffice, but also by many bundled l
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Thorsten Behrens
wrote:
> Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
>> Do not get me wrong. I applaud the effort to get rid of boost if we
>> can.. that is a big and expensive dep.
>>
> There's some amount of irony here, in that for c++11 and beyond, it's
> sometimes just stuff move
Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> Do not get me wrong. I applaud the effort to get rid of boost if we
> can.. that is a big and expensive dep.
>
There's some amount of irony here, in that for c++11 and beyond, it's
sometimes just stuff moved out of boost into std, that makes our boost
exposure seemingly s
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:51 PM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>> And your patch 8 would have failed the same way on tb58/tb59/tb60
>
> It requires a lot of efforts and time to upgrade all TBs to the newest
> baseline: 18 min. for OS + 22 min. for XCode. And we don't have time to
> do that. I understand
On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 06:29 -0500, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:22 AM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
> >
> > There weren't any changes in the affected file textdoc.cxx between those
> > two patch sets.
> that is a bold thing to say when a patch change stuff like uno headers
> or rt
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:22 AM, David Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> I'd like to rise a question about reliability and fidelity of Jenkins
> Gerrit change verification results. Consider this change: 16877.
It is so much easier to blame the tools indeed.
>
> * On patch set 8: [1] TB 66 voted VRFY+1 [2].
>
I'd like to rise a question about reliability and fidelity of Jenkins
Gerrit change verification results. Consider this change: 16877.
* On patch set 8: [1] TB 66 voted VRFY+1 [2].
* On patch set 9: [3] TB 60 voted VRFY1-1 [4].
There weren't any changes in the affected file textdoc.cxx between t
12 matches
Mail list logo
