| To: | Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Small pmie QA issue (was Re: [pcp] patch pings) |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:59:50 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | pcp developers <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <004601d10279$48d0b1f0$da7215d0$@internode.on.net> |
| References: | <20151001203810.GB7968@xxxxxxxxxx> <5616C970.8020306@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20151008205738.GB12082@xxxxxxxxxx> <1889384961.51637941.1444362897341.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <004601d10279$48d0b1f0$da7215d0$@internode.on.net> |
| Reply-to: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Thread-index: | AQM7xYv19TC376b+bfo/rcjtyX/R6gJ7c9yhAl3LqJwCBdj0S5tWbfiQLQNHvNE= |
| Thread-topic: | Small pmie QA issue (was Re: [pcp] patch pings) |
----- Original Message ----- > > I'm also seeing the attached failure in 295 now, which sounds similar > > to the above ... anyone else seeing this? taa. > > Absolutely related ... qa/294 was not in the pmie group, that's why it was > missed. > > I've added some debugging to 294 as well to confirm that the new 294 output > is correct (mine is the same as yours). No issue with pmie here. > > I'll commit to clean this up. > > Thanks, Nathan > No problemo - do you have that diagnostics + cleanup lurking somewhere? Just passing an eye over current QA failures, this ones still outstanding. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | pcp updates: qa, pmdaroot, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | pcp updates, Ken McDonell |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Small pmie QA issue (was Re: [pcp] patch pings), Ken McDonell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Small pmie QA issue (was Re: [pcp] patch pings), Ken McDonell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |