Mailing List Archive

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:41:33PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> Just looking at the schedule. I think our current set of bugs wouldn't
> block either a pre1 release or a set-0 mass-check. ;)
> I have a feeling we could spend a long time "spinning on a lock"
> here otherwise, waiting to get (nbugs == 0) before doing either.

I figure we can do a set0 and set1 score generation, ala #3447. just take
the latest net results. we could fake the set 2 and 3 scores for now.
so there.

as for the other 6 tickets, 3 are reviewable, 3471 needs an addition
to the patch for SQL, 3295 seems to be headed for 3.1.0, and 3480 is
"to be investigated".

I think we can get this stuff done this weekend, and that'll be it
for the tickets and pre1.

--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"...Deep Hack Mode--that mysterious and frightening state of
consciousness where Mortal Users fear to tread."
(By Matt Welsh)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:41:33PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Just looking at the schedule. I think our current set of bugs wouldn't
> > block either a pre1 release or a set-0 mass-check. ;)
> > I have a feeling we could spend a long time "spinning on a lock"
> > here otherwise, waiting to get (nbugs == 0) before doing either.
>
> I figure we can do a set0 and set1 score generation, ala #3447. just take
> the latest net results. we could fake the set 2 and 3 scores for now.
> so there.
>
> as for the other 6 tickets, 3 are reviewable, 3471 needs an addition
> to the patch for SQL, 3295 seems to be headed for 3.1.0, and 3480 is
> "to be investigated".
>
> I think we can get this stuff done this weekend, and that'll be it
> for the tickets and pre1.

The only problem with doing set1 right now, is that the SPF_PASS rules
won't fire (since they're unreferenced meta tests at the moment).
But set 0 should be doable, I agree...

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFAwqGUQTcbUG5Y7woRAnalAJ9LoGDJ1hewHyS9psq9SPrSfNSusgCfZJ8L
gx1eWZK7mjBGoJm1UMB8BFc=
=QEn1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 09:46:12PM -0700, Justin Mason wrote:
> The only problem with doing set1 right now, is that the SPF_PASS rules
> won't fire (since they're unreferenced meta tests at the moment).
> But set 0 should be doable, I agree...

We were going to set those to near-0 anyway...

--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
Anyone who thinks UNIX is intuitive should be forced to write 5000 lines of
code using nothing but vi or emacs. AAAAACK!
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of commands, especially
Emacs.)