Delivered-To: adam.hoka@gmail.com
Received: by 10.220.184.68 with SMTP id cj4cs27028vcb;
        Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.158.72 with SMTP id e8mr3423659fax.39.1308382886062;
        Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Return-Path: <>
Received: by 10.223.158.72 with SMTP id e8mr4330155fax.39; Sat, 18 Jun 2011
 00:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
To: Adam.Hoka@gmail.com
X-Failed-Recipients: current-users@netbsd.org
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
Message-ID: <0023541877602767c904a5f7a13e@google.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:41:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

     current-users@netbsd.org

Technical details of permanent failure:
Unspecified Error (SENT_MESSAGE): Connection timed out

----- Original message -----

Received: by 10.223.158.72 with SMTP id e8mr362461fax.39.1308132208321;
        Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <adam.hoka@gmail.com>
Received: from thinkpad ([178.48.146.116])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q21sm127659fan.40.2011.06.15.03.03.26
        (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Wed, 15 Jun 2011 03:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 12:03:23 +0200
From: Adam Hoka <adam.hoka@gmail.com>
To: Julio Merino <jmmv@NetBSD.org>
Cc: "current-users@netbsd.org" <current-users@NetBSD.org>
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: atf-0.14 imported
Message-Id: <20110615120323.5fa53095.adam.hoka@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF86993.9020003@NetBSD.org>
References: <4DF77F6B.2000801@NetBSD.org>
	<20110615030331.GB9004@marx.bitnet>
	<4DF85FDB.5000401@NetBSD.org>
	<20110615074542.GA5167@marx.bitnet>
	<4DF86993.9020003@NetBSD.org>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:13:07 +0100
Julio Merino <jmmv@NetBSD.org> wrote:

> On 6/15/11 8:45 AM, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 08:31:39AM +0100, Julio Merino wrote:
> >>> At least the shell-based tests are likely failing because of ATF itself.
> >>
> >> What makes you think that?
> >
> > This is yet again pretty self-evident. The regression is among:
>
> Well, you didn't provide this data point before :-P  Anyway, I see some
> problems now.  Had had no coffee before.
>
> Some problems are caused by broken test programs that atf 0.14 has just
> uncovered (fixed already).  In other cases, like the libc tests, the
> breakage is a regression; thinking now what the best fix is.
>
> --
> Julio Merino / @jmmv

How about testing ATF before commiting it? :p

--
NetBSD - Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability