Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:11:21 -0400 From: George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <5BC1F38C-C354-4A01-B809-A8FE64824ABD@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <CAGH67wRkOmy7rWLkxXnT2155PuSQpwOMyu7dTAKeO1WW2dju7g@mail.gmail.com> <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A@mail.gmail.com> <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Oct 2, 2012, at 10:37 , John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > This is very non-obvious to the public at large (e.g. there was no public > response to one group's inquiry about the second ATF import for example). > Also, given that you had no idea that sgf@ and obrien@ were working on > importing NetBSD's bmake as a prerequisite for ATF, it seems that whatever > discussions were held were not very detailed at best. I think it would be > good to have the various folks working on ATF to at least summarize the > current state of things and sketch out some sort of plan or roadmap for future > work in a public forum (such as atf@, though a summary mail would be quite > appropriate for arch@). I take partial responsibility for the privacy of the discussions hitherto. My apologies, it should have be moved out onto a public list sooner. But, I would like to drive this to a solution on arch@. We don't have an atf@, but we do have a test@ and testing@. We have too many mailing lists already, so let's finish this up here if we can and then continue talking on testing@. Best, Georgehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5BC1F38C-C354-4A01-B809-A8FE64824ABD>