Re: smokecurrent.log vs the report?

On 2008=9606=9603, at 23:14, H.Merijn Brand wrote:

> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:29:46 +0200, Dominic Dunlop
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2008=9606=9603, at 15:17, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>>
>>> I think the '?'s should be either 'F' or 'X' here. No idea as yet =20=

>>> why
>>> they are '?'
>>
>>
>> You can specify a maximum wallclock time for a smoke test. '?' is the
>> reported status for configurations that did not finish or did not get
>> run because the smoke was still running when the guillotine =20
>> descended.
>> Is that what happened during the test in question?
>>
>> See "killtime" on configsmoke.3 man page.
>
> But that would leave you with *one* '?' in the report. I've had many
> of those. Bram's report had two '?'s


Good point. A bit of trawling shows Steve Hay was getting (nothing =20
but) consecutive '?'s in early January reports from Test::Smoke =20
v1.20.07 build 1123; he upgraded to Test::Smoke v1.29_60 build 1155, =20
and the problem went away. However, as Bram's report is from =20
Test::Smoke v1.32 build 1176, that's probably not the answer -- unless =20=

there was a problem that got fixed and  then regressed.

See =
<http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.daily-build.reports/2008/01/msg52888.=
html=20
 >, =
<http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.daily-build.reports/2008/01/msg52910.=
html=20
 >, abd =
<http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.daily-build.reports/2008/01/msg52938.=
html=20
 >. Steve, can you throw any light on what was going wrong?

[Note to self: upgrade your Test::Smoke.]
--=20
Dominic Dunlop