"H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:40:28 +0100, Richard Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Richard Soderberg wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Richard Foley wrote:
> > >
> > > > a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following (nearly inherent)
> > > > hints:
> > >
> > > > category=dailybuild
> > > > status=open|closed
> > > > severity=fatal|high
> > >
> > > ack=yes|no
> > >
> > > Builds that have no test failures could be ok reports, too.
> > > Builds that don't successfully compile get a severity=fatal.
> > >
> > > Very nice.
> >
> > Is 'dailybuild' appropriate, or should that read something else?
> >
> > I guess it would be sensible if it was something along the lines of the
> > mailing list address name (smokers|testpilots|...) for consistency.
>
> Should we report "Configure failures" as
>
> [ ] Not at all
> [ ] Success
> [ ] Failure
> [ ] Other
>
> Here I mean that Configure is unable to proceed with the given configuration,
> e.g. 'Configure -Dusethreads' on a system that does /not/ support threads or
> 'Configure -Duse64bitall' on an OS that does not support 64 bit operations.
>
Sounds like a failure to me (being a layman :), I would have thought
Configure
should step around it or fail? Though you could always stick in a new
status?
crippled|injured|...
BTW that's another category is it, distinct from install?
configure
Ciao
--
Richard Foley
Ciao: shorter than Aufwiedersehen
