Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:02:18 -0700 From: Andy Sparrow <spadger@best.com> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [releng_4 tinderbox] failure on alpha/alpha Message-ID: <20030817210218.8F0C9C4@CRWdog.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Message from Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> <20030817045922.GA48181@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030817210218.8F0C9C4>