From: Stefan Seefeld (seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-25 09:52:44
Roland Schwarz wrote:
> Arkadiy Vertleyb wrote:
>> What happened? I thought we were down to 6 failures at some point... Are
>> all these new failures just indication of a problem in some low-level
> I am not absolutely sure, but as far as I understood the errors were
> always present, but masked due to a bug in the process_jam_log scripts.
What exactly does 'always' mean here ? Are we sure those newly exposed
errors really are regressions ?
-- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk