Hi Stephen,
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 13:27, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 18:30:29 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:19:48 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Would it be possible to build with `make -k', so it continues in case
>> > of an error, and
>> > tries to build as much as possible?
>> > Yes, I know this may increase build time considerably, but in an ideal
>> > world, there
>> > are no compile errors and everything is built anyway ;-)
>>
>> Done (I think - it required very simple changes to a Python script and I
>> only do "monkey see, monkey do" Python programming :-))
>
> I also made the mistake of fixing things so that the automatic "git
> bisect for build failures" would work. That was taking much too much
> time (over 4 hours for one build), so I have turned it off. Hopefully,
> the builds will now run in a more reasonable time frame.
Yeah, I noticed it. There are still no results for 3.0-rc4...
Probably you should only bisect for configs that where "green" recently.
And hope people fix reported regressions the-next-day-as-we-speak :-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
