Jerome Quelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then the question arises:
> - should we include myconfig in ok reports?
No IMHO. But *if* possible, enough information to keep PLATFORMS (or a
better variant of that) up to date - which still needs a bit more inside
tests but I think that we should go t
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Since we need a new system to handle ok/nok/full bug reports, how
> 'bout we add in:
>
>parrotstatus-ok
>parrotstatus-nok
>parrotbug
> all @parrotcode.org. The first for automated OK reports, the second
> for automated nok reports, and the third for actual bug repo
At 9:24 PM -0800 3/1/04, Robert Spier wrote:
- I'm not sure about the reporting address (Robert, I need your advice
on this one)
I suppose, it should be something like parrotbugparrotcode.org
Anyone else want to brainstorm bug addresses for parrot?
Since we need a new system to handle ok/nok/f
At 8:57 AM +0100 3/2/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Jerome Quelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- the copyright is missing (Dan, please insert correct copyright)
All in parrot root is subject to terms in LICENSES.
Copyright notices still should be in the individual files.
--
Jerome Quelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did not checked it in parrot's repository because:
> - I don't know where it should go in parrot tree
tools/dev invoked per "make bugreport"?
> - the copyright is missing (Dan, please insert correct copyright)
All in parrot root is subject to terms
> - it only accepts -ok / -nok flags (no *real* bug reports to be
>edited)
This may or may not be good. We need a new processing system (for
perl5 too) to deal with the -ok reports.
> - I'm not sure about the reporting address (Robert, I need your advice
> on this one)
I suppose, it sho
