From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27301 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2003 15:32:48 -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 27291 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2003 15:32:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2003 15:32:47 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18xVpo-0004WM-00; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:34:08 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18xTwG-0005Nb-00; Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:32:40 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: bogged down in sunday testing Message-ID: <20030324153240.GA18400@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200303240521.h2O5Lxu01166@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200303240521.h2O5Lxu01166@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00329.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 11:21:59PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > 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? Yeah. I'd like to focus on GCC HEAD at some point but we should wait until after the release of GCC 3.3 to do it probably. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer