You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@harmony.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com> on 2006/11/28 05:08:11 UTC
[build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
geir
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
+0.1
I personally will have to create filters anyway. Though the filters
will be simpler :)
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
> be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
>
> geir
>
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Alexey Petrenko <al...@gmail.com>.
2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
> be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
+1
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
> be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
+1
--
Stefano.
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Vladimir Ivanov <iv...@gmail.com>.
Some time ago when we discuss issue fixing policy some people vote to fix
failed tests/implementation ASAP instead of reverting changes back. But
nobody define the exact time for 'ASAP' :) If the issue requires 1 week for
investigation should we wait for fix? I think no.
And here we have 2 options: if the test is new - it should be excluded, if
the test is old - update should be reverted.
thanks, Vladimir
On 11/28/06, Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What does "under consideration" mean? We need to fix or roll them back
> ASAP
> otherwise we will end with all the tests sitting in the exclude lists
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/11/28, Vladimir Ivanov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> > Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
> > In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
> >
> > Thanks, Valdimir
> >
> >
> > On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > > > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it
> wouldn't
> > > > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of
> thing. comments?
> > >
> > > I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
> > > elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same
> failed
> > > state (these are being worked on).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tim
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> > > IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
What does "under consideration" mean? We need to fix or roll them back ASAP
otherwise we will end with all the tests sitting in the exclude lists
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/11/28, Vladimir Ivanov <iv...@gmail.com>:
> Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
> In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
>
> Thanks, Valdimir
>
>
> On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
> > > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
> >
> > I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
> > elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
> > state (these are being worked on).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> > IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> >
>
>
Re: [build-test] CI behavior for email ( was Re: [build-test] Should
we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?)
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> What if I just returned from trip/vacation/something else
>>
>> How can I know if some regular check is broken or not?
>
> Meaning that you unsubbed mail and therefore have no clue about current
> state? That is a corner case IMO (why are you unsubbing? :)
>
> The solution is the "dashboard". When we first started talking about
> this, an important piece is the as-yet-done "dashboard" - a single
> webpage somewhere where the status of every configuration under CI is
> shown (green/red or something).
>
> The dashboard system ("harmonytest.org"?) would get a mail feed of the
> alerts - yet another good reason to have it's own list - and update on
> each mail it got.
Yep, harmonytest or melody. If you forget what state we are in, or want
to look at the history then go to the dashboard and take a look. But we
don't need a constant stream of builder spam.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [build-test] CI behavior for email ( was Re: [build-test] Should
we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> 2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>
>>
>> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
>> > What if I just returned from trip/vacation/something else
>> >
>> > How can I know if some regular check is broken or not?
>>
>> Meaning that you unsubbed mail and therefore have no clue about current
>> state? That is a corner case IMO (why are you unsubbing? :)
>>
>> The solution is the "dashboard". When we first started talking about
>> this, an important piece is the as-yet-done "dashboard" - a single
>> webpage somewhere where the status of every configuration under CI is
>> shown (green/red or something).
>>
>> The dashboard system ("harmonytest.org"?) would get a mail feed of the
>> alerts - yet another good reason to have it's own list - and update on
>> each mail it got.
>>
>> >
>> > We probably need a wiki table with all possible regular runs and key
>> words
>> > for them, so that I can find mails in my box containing that key word.
>> > Makes sense?
>>
>> Yes. I do highly reccommend filters though...
>
> Filters are good to separate alerts from commits, but what's about
> when we will be watching 10 applications on 6 platforms? I'd like to
> be able to easily find the status
> of each specific configuration
>
Agreed. I posted a "straw man" at the bottom of :
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Automated_Testing
with the expectation that someone will rip it apart and do something
better :)
geir
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
>>
>> geir
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mikhail
>> >
>> > 2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>> >> > Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
>> >> > In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That is somewhat orthogonal, because the CI system shouldn't care what
>> >> we humans are doing - the "one notification" is automatic, based on
>> "las
>> >> state" and "current state".
>> >>
>> >> My thought was that CI would send a "BUILD FAILED" email when the
>> build
>> >> broke on some platform/config, and wouldn't ever send another mail
>> under
>> >> the build-test cycle was successful, and then it would send "BUILD
>> >> FIXED".
>> >>
>> >> Only then could it ever send a "BUILD FAILED" again.
>> >>
>> >> My problem is that CI is repeatedly sending email - it shouldn't until
>> >> things a healthy.
>> >>
>> >> For any given problem, we humans could choose to
>> >>
>> >> a) exclude the test while someone works on it. That would then result
>> >> in a SVN change that would trigger the cycle again, and if successful
>> >> send a "BUILD FIXED".
>> >>
>> >> b) fix the code - resulting in the above cycle and "BUILD FIXED" email
>> >> if successful
>> >>
>> >> c) something else
>> >>
>> >> but it doesn't matter - CI should just run based on 'last state',
>> >> changes in SVN, succeess/failure of build/test run, and with that info
>> >> and last state :
>> >>
>> >> 1) send a "BUILD FIXED" - if last state was failed and the last
>> >> build/test run was successful
>> >>
>> >> 2) send a "BUILD FAILED" - if last state was successful and build/test
>> >> run failed
>> >>
>> >> 3) send nothing - if last state was failed and build/test run failed
>> >>
>> >> 3) send nothing - if last state was successful and build/test run was
>> >> successful
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks, Valdimir
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >> >> > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it
>> >> wouldn't
>> >> >> > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing.
>> >> comments?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you
>> wrote
>> >> >> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same
>> >> failed
>> >> >> state (these are being worked on).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Tim
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> >> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
Re: [build-test] CI behavior for email ( was Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?)
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>
>
> Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> > What if I just returned from trip/vacation/something else
> >
> > How can I know if some regular check is broken or not?
>
> Meaning that you unsubbed mail and therefore have no clue about current
> state? That is a corner case IMO (why are you unsubbing? :)
>
> The solution is the "dashboard". When we first started talking about
> this, an important piece is the as-yet-done "dashboard" - a single
> webpage somewhere where the status of every configuration under CI is
> shown (green/red or something).
>
> The dashboard system ("harmonytest.org"?) would get a mail feed of the
> alerts - yet another good reason to have it's own list - and update on
> each mail it got.
>
> >
> > We probably need a wiki table with all possible regular runs and key words
> > for them, so that I can find mails in my box containing that key word.
> > Makes sense?
>
> Yes. I do highly reccommend filters though...
Filters are good to separate alerts from commits, but what's about
when we will be watching 10 applications on 6 platforms? I'd like to
be able to easily find the status
of each specific configuration
Thanks,
Mikhail
>
> geir
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mikhail
> >
> > 2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >> Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> >> > Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
> >> > In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is somewhat orthogonal, because the CI system shouldn't care what
> >> we humans are doing - the "one notification" is automatic, based on "las
> >> state" and "current state".
> >>
> >> My thought was that CI would send a "BUILD FAILED" email when the build
> >> broke on some platform/config, and wouldn't ever send another mail under
> >> the build-test cycle was successful, and then it would send "BUILD
> >> FIXED".
> >>
> >> Only then could it ever send a "BUILD FAILED" again.
> >>
> >> My problem is that CI is repeatedly sending email - it shouldn't until
> >> things a healthy.
> >>
> >> For any given problem, we humans could choose to
> >>
> >> a) exclude the test while someone works on it. That would then result
> >> in a SVN change that would trigger the cycle again, and if successful
> >> send a "BUILD FIXED".
> >>
> >> b) fix the code - resulting in the above cycle and "BUILD FIXED" email
> >> if successful
> >>
> >> c) something else
> >>
> >> but it doesn't matter - CI should just run based on 'last state',
> >> changes in SVN, succeess/failure of build/test run, and with that info
> >> and last state :
> >>
> >> 1) send a "BUILD FIXED" - if last state was failed and the last
> >> build/test run was successful
> >>
> >> 2) send a "BUILD FAILED" - if last state was successful and build/test
> >> run failed
> >>
> >> 3) send nothing - if last state was failed and build/test run failed
> >>
> >> 3) send nothing - if last state was successful and build/test run was
> >> successful
> >>
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >>
> >> > Thanks, Valdimir
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> >> > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it
> >> wouldn't
> >> >> > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing.
> >> comments?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
> >> >> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same
> >> failed
> >> >> state (these are being worked on).
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Tim
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >>
> >> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> >> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [build-test] CI behavior for email ( was Re: [build-test] Should
we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Mikhail Loenko wrote:
> What if I just returned from trip/vacation/something else
>
> How can I know if some regular check is broken or not?
Meaning that you unsubbed mail and therefore have no clue about current
state? That is a corner case IMO (why are you unsubbing? :)
The solution is the "dashboard". When we first started talking about
this, an important piece is the as-yet-done "dashboard" - a single
webpage somewhere where the status of every configuration under CI is
shown (green/red or something).
The dashboard system ("harmonytest.org"?) would get a mail feed of the
alerts - yet another good reason to have it's own list - and update on
each mail it got.
>
> We probably need a wiki table with all possible regular runs and key words
> for them, so that I can find mails in my box containing that key word.
> Makes sense?
Yes. I do highly reccommend filters though...
geir
>
> Thanks,
> Mikhail
>
> 2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>>
>>
>> Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>> > Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
>> > In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
>> >
>>
>> That is somewhat orthogonal, because the CI system shouldn't care what
>> we humans are doing - the "one notification" is automatic, based on "las
>> state" and "current state".
>>
>> My thought was that CI would send a "BUILD FAILED" email when the build
>> broke on some platform/config, and wouldn't ever send another mail under
>> the build-test cycle was successful, and then it would send "BUILD
>> FIXED".
>>
>> Only then could it ever send a "BUILD FAILED" again.
>>
>> My problem is that CI is repeatedly sending email - it shouldn't until
>> things a healthy.
>>
>> For any given problem, we humans could choose to
>>
>> a) exclude the test while someone works on it. That would then result
>> in a SVN change that would trigger the cycle again, and if successful
>> send a "BUILD FIXED".
>>
>> b) fix the code - resulting in the above cycle and "BUILD FIXED" email
>> if successful
>>
>> c) something else
>>
>> but it doesn't matter - CI should just run based on 'last state',
>> changes in SVN, succeess/failure of build/test run, and with that info
>> and last state :
>>
>> 1) send a "BUILD FIXED" - if last state was failed and the last
>> build/test run was successful
>>
>> 2) send a "BUILD FAILED" - if last state was successful and build/test
>> run failed
>>
>> 3) send nothing - if last state was failed and build/test run failed
>>
>> 3) send nothing - if last state was successful and build/test run was
>> successful
>>
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> > Thanks, Valdimir
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> >> > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it
>> wouldn't
>> >> > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing.
>> comments?
>> >>
>> >> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
>> >> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same
>> failed
>> >> state (these are being worked on).
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Tim
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>> >>
>> >
>>
Re: [build-test] CI behavior for email ( was Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?)
Posted by Mikhail Loenko <ml...@gmail.com>.
What if I just returned from trip/vacation/something else
How can I know if some regular check is broken or not?
We probably need a wiki table with all possible regular runs and key words
for them, so that I can find mails in my box containing that key word.
Makes sense?
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/11/28, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com>:
>
>
> Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> > Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
> > In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
> >
>
> That is somewhat orthogonal, because the CI system shouldn't care what
> we humans are doing - the "one notification" is automatic, based on "las
> state" and "current state".
>
> My thought was that CI would send a "BUILD FAILED" email when the build
> broke on some platform/config, and wouldn't ever send another mail under
> the build-test cycle was successful, and then it would send "BUILD FIXED".
>
> Only then could it ever send a "BUILD FAILED" again.
>
> My problem is that CI is repeatedly sending email - it shouldn't until
> things a healthy.
>
> For any given problem, we humans could choose to
>
> a) exclude the test while someone works on it. That would then result
> in a SVN change that would trigger the cycle again, and if successful
> send a "BUILD FIXED".
>
> b) fix the code - resulting in the above cycle and "BUILD FIXED" email
> if successful
>
> c) something else
>
> but it doesn't matter - CI should just run based on 'last state',
> changes in SVN, succeess/failure of build/test run, and with that info
> and last state :
>
> 1) send a "BUILD FIXED" - if last state was failed and the last
> build/test run was successful
>
> 2) send a "BUILD FAILED" - if last state was successful and build/test
> run failed
>
> 3) send nothing - if last state was failed and build/test run failed
>
> 3) send nothing - if last state was successful and build/test run was
> successful
>
>
> geir
>
>
> > Thanks, Valdimir
> >
> >
> > On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
> >> > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
> >>
> >> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
> >> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
> >> state (these are being worked on).
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> >>
> >
>
Re: [build-test] CI behavior for email ( was Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?)
Posted by Vladimir Ivanov <iv...@gmail.com>.
OK. I need some time to update system.
Thanks, Vladimir
On 11/28/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> > Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
> > In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
> >
>
> That is somewhat orthogonal, because the CI system shouldn't care what
> we humans are doing - the "one notification" is automatic, based on "las
> state" and "current state".
>
> My thought was that CI would send a "BUILD FAILED" email when the build
> broke on some platform/config, and wouldn't ever send another mail under
> the build-test cycle was successful, and then it would send "BUILD FIXED".
>
> Only then could it ever send a "BUILD FAILED" again.
>
> My problem is that CI is repeatedly sending email - it shouldn't until
> things a healthy.
>
> For any given problem, we humans could choose to
>
> a) exclude the test while someone works on it. That would then result
> in a SVN change that would trigger the cycle again, and if successful
> send a "BUILD FIXED".
>
> b) fix the code - resulting in the above cycle and "BUILD FIXED" email
> if successful
>
> c) something else
>
> but it doesn't matter - CI should just run based on 'last state',
> changes in SVN, succeess/failure of build/test run, and with that info
> and last state :
>
> 1) send a "BUILD FIXED" - if last state was failed and the last
> build/test run was successful
>
> 2) send a "BUILD FAILED" - if last state was successful and build/test
> run failed
>
> 3) send nothing - if last state was failed and build/test run failed
>
> 3) send nothing - if last state was successful and build/test run was
> successful
>
>
> geir
>
>
> > Thanks, Valdimir
> >
> >
> > On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it
> wouldn't
> >> > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of
> thing. comments?
> >>
> >> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
> >> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
> >> state (these are being worked on).
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> >> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
> >>
> >
>
[build-test] CI behavior for email ( was Re: [build-test] Should
we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
> Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
> In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
>
That is somewhat orthogonal, because the CI system shouldn't care what
we humans are doing - the "one notification" is automatic, based on "las
state" and "current state".
My thought was that CI would send a "BUILD FAILED" email when the build
broke on some platform/config, and wouldn't ever send another mail under
the build-test cycle was successful, and then it would send "BUILD FIXED".
Only then could it ever send a "BUILD FAILED" again.
My problem is that CI is repeatedly sending email - it shouldn't until
things a healthy.
For any given problem, we humans could choose to
a) exclude the test while someone works on it. That would then result
in a SVN change that would trigger the cycle again, and if successful
send a "BUILD FIXED".
b) fix the code - resulting in the above cycle and "BUILD FIXED" email
if successful
c) something else
but it doesn't matter - CI should just run based on 'last state',
changes in SVN, succeess/failure of build/test run, and with that info
and last state :
1) send a "BUILD FIXED" - if last state was failed and the last
build/test run was successful
2) send a "BUILD FAILED" - if last state was successful and build/test
run failed
3) send nothing - if last state was failed and build/test run failed
3) send nothing - if last state was successful and build/test run was
successful
geir
> Thanks, Valdimir
>
>
> On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
>> > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
>>
>> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
>> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
>> state (these are being worked on).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tim
>>
>> --
>>
>> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
>> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>>
>
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Vladimir Ivanov <iv...@gmail.com>.
Could we just exclude test while it is under investigation?
In this case we will see only one notification for each failure.
Thanks, Valdimir
On 11/28/06, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
> > be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
>
> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
> state (these are being worked on).
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> --
>
> Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
> IBM Java technology centre, UK.
>
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
>>> be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
>>
>> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
>> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
>> state (these are being worked on).
>
> Would you be against having another list?
>
> We can all filter easy enough - the motivation was really for archiving
> purposes....
I don't particularly care either way. Do whatever suits most people.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
>> be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
>
> I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
> elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
> state (these are being worked on).
Would you be against having another list?
We can all filter easy enough - the motivation was really for archiving
purposes....
geir
Re: [build-test] Should we setup a separate mail list for "alerts"?
Posted by Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com>.
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Each of us can use filters to sort them, but it seems like it wouldn't
> be a bad idea having a separate list for this kind of thing. comments?
I'm happy enough for them to be on the commit list, but as you wrote
elsewhere we need to stop getting repeated messages for the same failed
state (these are being worked on).
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Ellison (t.p.ellison@gmail.com)
IBM Java technology centre, UK.