Branch: refs/heads/master
  Home:   https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos
  Commit: 21ceafeec2e39b77293a9bfc5acd8be0d59318d6
      https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/21ceafeec2e39b77293a9bfc5acd8be0d59318d6
  Author: Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
  Date:   2012-01-22 (Sun, 22 Jan 2012)

  Changed paths:
    M std/__fileinit.d

  Log Message:
  -----------
  Merge pull request #401 from Numpsy/usewfuncs

64bit Windows always supports the W functions, so no need to check for them

Seriously?

Ok, what can I do to help make the pull tester more obvious, useful, etc?  Two ways come to mind:

  1) a greasemonkey script that integrates results into the pull request parts of the github website.  Relatively easy
to do, but only works for those that both have the greasemonkey plugin installed in their browser and install the
to-be-written script.

  2) update the pull request with a failure annotation.  Hard to do well, easy to do badly.  The key trick is keeping
the number of annotations to a minimum.  A note on each failure is obviously bad.


Pull tester results:
  http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pull.ghtml?runid=37324

Trunk tester:
  http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?dataid=142816

Sigh,
Brad

On 1/22/2012 6:15 PM, GitHub wrote:
>   Branch: refs/heads/master
>   Home:   https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos
>   Commit: 21ceafeec2e39b77293a9bfc5acd8be0d59318d6
>       https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/commit/21ceafeec2e39b77293a9bfc5acd8be0d59318d6
>   Author: Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>
>   Date:   2012-01-22 (Sun, 22 Jan 2012)
> 
>   Changed paths:
>     M std/__fileinit.d
> 
>   Log Message:
>   -----------
>   Merge pull request #401 from Numpsy/usewfuncs
> 
> 64bit Windows always supports the W functions, so no need to check for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos

On Sunday, January 22, 2012 18:33:04 Brad Roberts wrote:
> Seriously?
> 
> Ok, what can I do to help make the pull tester more obvious, useful, etc? Two ways come to mind:
> 
>   1) a greasemonkey script that integrates results into the pull request
> parts of the github website.  Relatively easy to do, but only works for
> those that both have the greasemonkey plugin installed in their browser and
> install the to-be-written script.
> 
>   2) update the pull request with a failure annotation.  Hard to do well,
> easy to do badly.  The key trick is keeping the number of annotations to a
> minimum.  A note on each failure is obviously bad.
> 
> 
> Pull tester results:
>   http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pull.ghtml?runid=37324
> 
> Trunk tester:
>   http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?dataid=142816
> 
> Sigh,
> Brad

I checked the autotester first. It was passing. My guess is that it was the version _before_ the most recent update to that pull request that had passed, and it hadn't gotten the chance to build again, but I don't know. I'm looking into it now.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 1/22/2012 6:37 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, January 22, 2012 18:33:04 Brad Roberts wrote:
>> Seriously?
>>
>> Ok, what can I do to help make the pull tester more obvious, useful, etc? Two ways come to mind:
>>
>>   1) a greasemonkey script that integrates results into the pull request
>> parts of the github website.  Relatively easy to do, but only works for
>> those that both have the greasemonkey plugin installed in their browser and
>> install the to-be-written script.
>>
>>   2) update the pull request with a failure annotation.  Hard to do well,
>> easy to do badly.  The key trick is keeping the number of annotations to a
>> minimum.  A note on each failure is obviously bad.
>>
>>
>> Pull tester results:
>>   http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/pull.ghtml?runid=37324
>>
>> Trunk tester:
>>   http://d.puremagic.com/test-results/test_data.ghtml?dataid=142816
>>
>> Sigh,
>> Brad
> 
> I checked the autotester first. It was passing. My guess is that it was the version _before_ the most recent update to that pull request that had passed, and it hadn't gotten the chance to build again, but I don't know. I'm looking into it now.
> 
> - Jonathan M Davis

It looks like there was an update to the request that changed the result from passing to failing, but several runs had failed today.

mysql> select * from pull_test_runs where g_p_id = 235 and platform="Win_32" order by end_time;
+-------+--------+---------+----------------+----------+------------------------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+------+---------+
| id    | g_p_id | pull_id | reporter_ip    | platform | sha                                      | start_time
| end_time            | rc   | deleted |
+-------+--------+---------+----------------+----------+------------------------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+------+---------+
| 36243 |    235 |     401 | 107.21.106.218 | Win_32   | a1d83cdd9393b97c3131337aa83108e7d13f6bf1 | 2012-01-21 20:18:47
| 2012-01-21 20:28:36 |    0 |       1 |
| 36319 |    235 |     401 | 107.21.106.218 | Win_32   | a1d83cdd9393b97c3131337aa83108e7d13f6bf1 | 2012-01-21 21:46:21
| 2012-01-21 21:56:18 |    0 |       1 |
| 36515 |    235 |     401 | 107.21.106.218 | Win_32   | a1d83cdd9393b97c3131337aa83108e7d13f6bf1 | 2012-01-22 01:22:18
| 2012-01-22 01:32:03 |    0 |       1 |
| 36663 |    235 |     401 | 107.21.106.218 | Win_32   | 61270ed7b20b131af3e0ffba038affcb5e82f662 | 2012-01-22 04:03:00
| 2012-01-22 04:06:30 |    1 |       1 |
| 37042 |    235 |     401 | 107.21.106.218 | Win_32   | 61270ed7b20b131af3e0ffba038affcb5e82f662 | 2012-01-22 10:48:33
| 2012-01-22 10:52:00 |    1 |       1 |
| 37324 |    235 |     401 | 107.21.106.218 | Win_32   | 61270ed7b20b131af3e0ffba038affcb5e82f662 | 2012-01-22 14:30:00
| 2012-01-22 14:33:28 |    1 |       1 |
+-------+--------+---------+----------------+----------+------------------------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+------+---------+

On Sunday, January 22, 2012 18:50:25 Brad Roberts wrote:
> It looks like there was an update to the request that changed the result from passing to failing, but several runs had failed today.

There's every possibility that I screwed up when I checked, but I _did_ check first.

- Jonathan M davis