From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 10 07:54:41 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F122B106564A; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:54:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost2.sentex.ca (smarthost2-6.sentex.ca [IPv6:2607:f3e0:80:80::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA0E98FC08; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:54:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost2.sentex.ca (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o8A7sXCt025807 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:54:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8A7sXLt078290; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:54:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <201009100754.o8A7sXLt078290@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 03:54:24 -0400 To: Doug Barton , freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <4C89663D.5050007@FreeBSD.org> References: <201009081055.o88Atvu8050938@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20100908130700.GA53378@mail.hs.ntnu.edu.tw> <201009081439.o88EdHwh064108@lava.sentex.ca> <4C89663D.5050007@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 205.211.164.50 Cc: Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on amd64/amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:54:42 -0000 At 06:57 PM 9/9/2010, Doug Barton wrote: >>Normally they are pointed to a local mirror here at Sentex. However, >>that server was having hardware problems which I think we have isolated >>and resolved now. I will repoint this tinderbox to the local site again. > >The best way to handle this would be to have messages about csup >failing to be directed only to those who are actually able to fix >the problem. Assuming that the cvsup server is always going to work >is contrary to both history and good system administration practices. :) > >>Perhaps as an interim measure a local procmail rule to filter out cvsup >>failures from going to the list ? > >That's a particularly unhelpful response. Not only is it borderline >rude to attempt to shift the responsibility for this to the users, >it's a violation of the robustness principle. I meant "local procmail rule" as in local to the tinderboxes so that des and myself and others who admin the boxes only get such messages. I didnt want to make such changes without des' approval and was waiting for his input... ---Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike