| To: | Stan Cox <scox@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [pcp] python QA/709 failures |
| From: | Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:19:09 +1000 |
| Cc: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>, PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <515DC99F.6050600@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1086370001.24034377.1364166803775.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <514F89FC.5020102@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <515DC99F.6050600@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 |
On 05/04/13 05:42, Stan Cox wrote: On 03/24/2013 07:19 PM, Ken McDonell wrote:failing cases are single CPU machines.This hopefully catches all the uniprocessor accesses. The change is to my development version which has the pcp accesses split out into a module pmsubsys.py. Stan,I don't want to confuse the upstream merging by cherry-picking from your tree, especially if there are python changes beyond the qa ones. What's the plan for getting your changes merged into the official pcp tree on oss.sgi.com? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | pcp-gui updates, Mark Goodwin |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [pcp] qa/713 certificate issue, Ken McDonell |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [pcp] python QA/709 failures, Stan Cox |
| Next by Thread: | Re: python QA/709 failures, Frank Ch. Eigler |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |