On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 09:49:15AM +1100, Ken McDonell wrote:
> I've rewritten 216 (attached).
>
> I now need to enlist the assistance of the distributed PCP QA pixies
> network to give me some feedback.
>
> If you're able, please run this in a QA environment,
As you already had my 216.out, it is no surprise that this worked fine
in my environment.
thanks
mh
>
> check 216
>
> and send me (a) mail if it works indicating the sort of Linux system
> you're on, else (b) the same info as (a) for a failure, plus 216.out.bad
> and 216.full.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 10:53 -0500, Martin Hicks wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:17:04AM +1100, Ken McDonell wrote:
> > > Can you send me the 216.full file ... I'll tweak the test accordingly?
> > >
> > > I think 600 is one of those problematic ones ... send me the output from
> > >
> > > ls -l 600*
> > >
> > > and the 600.full file and I'll see if I can sort it out. The logic in
> > > 600 for picking which is the expected outcome is very convoluted ... the
> > > fact that we have FOUR possible linux output files gives some indication
> > > of the mess we're trying to untangle.
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/~mort/216.full
> > http://oss.sgi.com/~mort/600.full
>
|