Nut upsdev - Nov 2011 - [nut-commits] buildbot failure in Network UPS Tools on Fedora-x64

Hey Charles,

2011/11/24  <clepple+buildbot at ghz.cc>:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Fedora-x64 while
building Network UPS Tools.
> Full details are available at:
>
?http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/builders/Fedora-x64/builds/453
>
> Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/
>
> Buildslave for this Build: pune-fc10-64bit
>
> Build Reason: The web-page 'force build' button was pressed by
'clepple':
>
> Build Source Stamp: [branch branches/Eaton_SDK] Testing
> Blamelist:
>
> BUILD FAILED: failed svn
thanks for pushing the build on this branch.

wouldn't it be better to tie the testing of branch to "--revision
HEAD", to be more generic?
It still seem to be linked to 'Testing', which is not applicable
anymore for long.

Otherwise, tagging desired branch to 'Testing' can also be an option.

cheers,
Arnaud
-- 
Linux / Unix Expert R&D - Eaton - http://powerquality.eaton.com
Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/
Debian Developer - http://www.debian.org
Free Software Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/

On Nov 25, 2011, at 4:36 AM, Arnaud Quette <aquette.dev at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hey Charles,
> 
> 2011/11/24  <clepple+buildbot at ghz.cc>:
>> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder Fedora-x64 while
building Network UPS Tools.
>> Full details are available at:
>> 
http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/builders/Fedora-x64/builds/453
>> 
>> Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.networkupstools.org/public/nut/
>> 
>> Buildslave for this Build: pune-fc10-64bit
>> 
>> Build Reason: The web-page 'force build' button was pressed by
'clepple':
>> 
>> Build Source Stamp: [branch branches/Eaton_SDK] Testing
>> Blamelist:
>> 
>> BUILD FAILED: failed svn
> 
> thanks for pushing the build on this branch.
> 
> wouldn't it be better to tie the testing of branch to "--revision
> HEAD", to be more generic?
> It still seem to be linked to 'Testing', which is not applicable
> anymore for long.
> 
I meant to leave the revision field blank. Next forced build was what I intended
to do.