smaller, not as victorious

One of our tests has been “failing for quite a while”:https://buffalo.clusterfs.com/displayreport.pl?reportid=5592, and I was going to look at it, you know, soon. Last night I got a mail indicating that the test was part of an acceptance run for a customer, so I made it today’s priority (along with the aforementioned work on Pink). Around noon, though, I found out that we need to pass it on this customer cluster by tomorrow afternoon. Oy.

I wonder what I’ll be like at the gym tomorrow after an all-nighter.

6 comments to “smaller, not as victorious”

  1. nobody special
    entered 19 December 2003 @ 8:48 am

    I would have written this entry slightly differently, with less emphasis on the phrase “found out” and a greater role for the word “forgot”.

    But it’s cool, poetic license and whatnot.

  2. entered 19 December 2003 @ 9:37 am

    If you’d like to tell Jacob and me when I found out that we needed recovery-small for this, I’m sure we’d both be much obliged.

  3. nobody in particular
    entered 19 December 2003 @ 11:53 am

    I knew shaver would get angry.

  4. entered 19 December 2003 @ 2:21 pm

    I fixed the other bug too, and it was the fault, I believe of a patch “nobody in particular” reviewed. If I weren’t so tired, I would do a dance of vindication.

  5. tipsy mcstagger
    entered 22 December 2003 @ 11:47 am

    You wrote in the bug: “I suppose it’s hard for this to be caused by 2356, which went in after we started to see this failure.”

    Does this clear my besmirched name, or does the gauntlet remain thrown, in what others might consider to be an unambiguous challenge to my manhood?

  6. entered 24 December 2003 @ 10:51 am

    I said “I believe” precisely because I don’t stoop to such besmirchment quite so readily as do you, dearheart.

    Far be it from me to challenge your manhood, ambiguous though it might be.