[45488] in SIPB bug reports
Re: Report on your nightly job (sipbsrc FILES rebuild)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Fri Dec 28 17:11:56 2012
From jhawk@MIT.EDU Fri Dec 28 22:11:55 2012
Return-Path: <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
Delivered-To: bug-sipb-mtg@CHARON.mit.edu
Received: (qmail 21511 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2012 22:11:55 -0000
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (18.7.62.36)
by charon.mit.edu with SMTP; 28 Dec 2012 22:11:55 -0000
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH.MIT.EDU [18.7.22.103])
by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id qBSMBn77021898;
Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:11:49 -0500
Received: from localhost (CONTENTS-VNDER-PRESSVRE.MIT.EDU [18.9.64.11])
(authenticated bits=0)
(User authenticated as jhawk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.6/8.12.4) with ESMTP id qBSMBlN9012365;
Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:11:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:11:47 -0500
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Alex Rolfe <arolfe@mit.edu>
Cc: rtfm-maintainers@mit.edu, bug-sipb@mit.edu
Subject: Re: Report on your nightly job (sipbsrc FILES rebuild)
Message-ID: <20121228221147.GN1620@ringworld.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1212281655220.12170@multics.mit.edu>
<20121228215106.GM1620@ringworld.MIT.EDU>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
John Hawkinson <jhawk@MIT.EDU> wrote on Fri, 28 Dec 2012
> I think it would be better to mark them FILES.stale and FILES.look.stale
> rahter than removing them. Though I'm confused since they still
> seem to be in /afs/sipb/project/sipbsrc/nightly/, which I thought was the
> target of this.
Oops, I confused the project.sipb and sipb.src volumes. It turns out
Alex rm'd /mit/sipbsrc/FILES, which was symlink to
/mit/sipbsrc/nightly/FILES. I renamed the nightly/ files to .stale,
and restored the symlinks, which I think is a bit clearer.
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> wrote on Fri, 28 Dec 2012
at 17:03:04 -0500 in <alpine.GSO.1.10.1212281655220.12170@multics.mit.edu>:
> You never replied to my question regarding what actions would be
> useful to take to hasten resolution of the issue as opposed to
> inciting delays.
Because I did not know how to answer the question, and it felt like
there was a lot of animus such that declining to engage was better.
--jhawk
