From owner-freebsd-current Mon Sep 2 20:13:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA27923 for current-outgoing; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eel.dataplex.net (eel.dataplex.net [208.2.87.2]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA27918 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (cod [208.2.87.4]) by eel.dataplex.net (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA06268; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:11:47 -0500 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:11:48 -0500 To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Cc: current@freebsd.org Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > If a majority of the > build boxes report success during a given 24 hour period, and I'd > recommend making it a majority vote since a given percentage will > *always* be hosed due to local stupidity of some sort, then the > for-public-consumption tree will be updated. > >That would solve the problem nicely, but so far none of the "current >is broken *again*!" complainers have been willing to sit down and >actually implement the framework necessary for making this work. The only potential problem that I see has to do with the problem of builds which depend on previous builds. If I have ctm release 100, and it works, I would verfify that 101 is OK. >From 101, I might verify 102, etc. However, 102 might NOT build from 100 because it depends on the installation of something in 101. :-( >P.S. A human-driven model for this will *NOT* work. Such a >buildmeister person will simply burn out on the process in short >order, needlessly wasting everyone's time and one buildmeister. On this, I agree.