From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31888 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2003 05:22:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31856 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2003 05:21:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 05:21:59 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h2O5Lxu01166 for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Sun, 23 Mar 2003 23:21:59 -0600 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 05:22:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200303240521.h2O5Lxu01166@duracef.shout.net> To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: bogged down in sunday testing X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 Okay, I capitulate. My last Sunday report was 2003-02-28. I am bogged down and I could use a little help from my friends. The problem is that I have multiple systemic failures with gcc HEAD. I've reported one of them as pr gcc/10055, but there are several more. I'm thinking of just dropping coverage of gcc HEAD for a while so that I can make reports oriented towards getting gdb 5.4/6.0 released. I don't think that 'works with gcc HEAD' is a release criterion. I can drop coverage, treat the gcc HEAD bugs as a separate task, and get back in gear, like testing that java regression fix from David Carlton. Does that sound reasonable? Michael C