Actually it is a surprise (sort of), because I changed the whole
algorithm used in the test ... anyway that's good so I'll commit my new
216 and push it back to the oss tree.
Thanks Martin.
On Fri, 2009-11-06 at 08:58 -0600, Martin Hicks wrote:
> 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
> >
>
>
|