From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Aug 17 14:02:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD4C37B401 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:02:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from CRWdog.demon.co.uk (c-67-161-102-60.client.comcast.net [67.161.102.60]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B6E43F75 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:02:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from spadger@best.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by CRWdog.demon.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0C9C4 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 To: stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message from Kris Kennaway <20030817045922.GA48181@rot13.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:02:18 -0700 From: Andy Sparrow Message-Id: <20030817210218.8F0C9C4@CRWdog.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [releng_4 tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: stable@freebsd.org List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:02:26 -0000 > > The same thing started in -PORTS quite some time ago, where I find > > personally find that it generates more cr@p than the real traffic at > > times. > > You're entitled to your opinion, Thanks, I will clarify it further for you. > but since you've never had to deal > with the flood of support requests when INDEX builds were broken by > careless committers before I started the automated tinderbox, Wouldn't the real issue be to control the careless committers then? Or to target them specifically and directly with the Tinderbox failures? When I automated overnight builds of mutiple branches of a commercial product on mutiple OS platforms, sending those build results company-wide was never considered as an option. I just don't see why it isn't more appropriate to simply limit the messages to people with a commit bit, a specific email alias, or even people who checked stuff in since the last sucessful Tinderbox. > I'd > suggest you try to consider it from point of view of those of us who > are actually involved in the support of the OS. It's not that I don't appreciate the efforts that are being made so much as I question the elegance of the solution employed. Some people pay for (limited) bandwidth by time on-line, and cannot filter except after receipt, thus have no choice but to *pay* to retrieve those messages before filtering them, so it's not simply a question of whether they "just hit delete" or filter them out or whatever. Those messages thus inevitably dilute the value of the list for them, I suggest you try to consider it from *their* point of view. There's also the issue that all the descriptive fields for -STABLE and -PORTS say that these are "discussion" lists - which *used* to be true. Multiple posts from Bots don't make for much of a "discussion", in my book. Whatever. Procmail works for me, but not everyone has that choice. AS