On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:48, Andy Doan wrote:
On 08/17/2012 02:34 PM, Paul Larson wrote:
Andy recommended splitting this into a reversion of the previous tag handling patch, and the new stuff. Here's the result.
+1 for me. Ricardo - you want me to merge this?
OK, so two jobs are in the system that are a bit odd:
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/29811 - LT-TI-working-tree_panda-es-omap4plus_20120821-0058_daily test
It's not caught up with the fact that panda-es is a new device type, and not a device tag any more
And
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/29823 - https://android-build.linaro.org/jenkins/job/linaro-android_panda-jb-gcc47-t...
Which is not a panda-es issue, but has specifically been targeted at panda09. Anybody know why that might be?
Thanks
Dave
On 08/21/2012 08:09 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:48, Andy Doan wrote:
On 08/17/2012 02:34 PM, Paul Larson wrote:
Andy recommended splitting this into a reversion of the previous tag handling patch, and the new stuff. Here's the result.
+1 for me. Ricardo - you want me to merge this?
OK, so two jobs are in the system that are a bit odd:
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/29811 - LT-TI-working-tree_panda-es-omap4plus_20120821-0058_daily test
It's not caught up with the fact that panda-es is a new device type, and not a device tag any more
Scott's aware of this and is updating his scripts to not submit that way anymore.
And
http://validation.linaro.org/lava-server/scheduler/job/29823 - https://android-build.linaro.org/jenkins/job/linaro-android_panda-jb-gcc47-t...
Which is not a panda-es issue, but has specifically been targeted at panda09. Anybody know why that might be?
That's odd indeed. Maybe they are testing something with android-build.
linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org
-
Andy Doan -
Dave Pigott