|Date:||Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:03:52 +0300 (EET DST)|
|To:||"Foley, Richard" <Richard.Foley [...] m.dasa.de>|
|Cc:||perl5-porters [...] perl.org|
|Subject:||Re: AW: perlbug and OKs?|
|From:||Jarkko Hietaniemi <jhi [...] iki.fi>|
I disagree with Mike. Seeing the (?:Not )OK messages *also* in p5p is good. Having to go the place X to separately see how a new release is doing is bothersome. If somebody wants not to see the OK/Not OK messages, I can personally advise them in the black art of procmail. The OKs can be generated bug ids (and immediately closed), but I think that's not necessary. If someone else with an "identical" system gets different results, let them submit a separate Not OK. (In my message quoted above "original ones" means true OKs) Show quoted text
Use the headers, Luke^WRichard. Show quoted text
> >Either perlbug is not letting OK ("make ok") messages through to p5p> See above. >
> >at all (baaaad) or there seems to be a long time lag in perlbug> There is a big lag on mail that goes to perlbug, no idea where it comes > from, though I'd guess at a timely cronjob that processes any mailing list > stuff, (direct mail goes through quite quickly).
I think both an "OK" would be ok. -- $jhi++; # # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
> >(baaaad): I've sent several OK messages for 5.005_58 (just out) but I > >have seen none in p5p so far.> Yup, as above. They are all stored in the db. >
> >P.S. Do you archive OK/Not OK messages somewhere?> Yup, currently I've just put them in the database, and closed them. They > could probably do with another category 'OK', or perhaps go under 'notabug'?