thanks! (and apologies yet again that i never remember your name... i suck
at names!)
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 13:19 Eric Molitor wrote:
> I can take a look this weekend.
>
> - Eric
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, 8:32 pm enh via Toybox,
> wrote:
>
>> heh, and the revert commit _did_ get a green ci run.
I can take a look this weekend.
- Eric
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023, 8:32 pm enh via Toybox,
wrote:
> heh, and the revert commit _did_ get a green ci run. so, yeah, definitely
> bad. but now we need the guy who set up the github ci in the first place to
> hit us with his cluestick... :-) (how is a
heh, and the revert commit _did_ get a green ci run. so, yeah, definitely
bad. but now we need the guy who set up the github ci in the first place to
hit us with his cluestick... :-) (how is a failure to parse not a red cross
with a link to logs, just like if it parsed but the _actions_ failed?!
On 7/20/23 09:07, enh wrote:
> at this point, i'm pretty sure that change silently broke it --- i've never
> seen
> a gap without runs over this many changes, or this amount of time.
>
> revert
> https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/c45e800803364c6e1f343e431f98e19a1bc1148f
> ?
Done.
I
at this point, i'm pretty sure that change silently broke it --- i've never
seen a gap without runs over this many changes, or this amount of time.
revert
https://github.com/landley/toybox/commit/c45e800803364c6e1f343e431f98e19a1bc1148f
?
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 2:10 PM enh wrote:
> yeah, i'll
