On 10/01/14 19:42, Graham Binns wrote:
> On 10 January 2014 09:27, Julian Edwards <email address hidden> wrote:
>> We do need to report success, so some way of IDing the test run on a
>> hardware basis would be the best way forwards here (and then dupe on that).
>
> +1. I'll revert this branch for starters.
>
Thanks. Sorry I wasn't around to put you off in the first place, I keep
assuming everyone knows everything... and you know what they say about
assumptions.
On 10/01/14 19:42, Graham Binns wrote:
> On 10 January 2014 09:27, Julian Edwards <email address hidden> wrote:
>> We do need to report success, so some way of IDing the test run on a
>> hardware basis would be the best way forwards here (and then dupe on that).
>
> +1. I'll revert this branch for starters.
>
Thanks. Sorry I wasn't around to put you off in the first place, I keep
assuming everyone knows everything... and you know what they say about
assumptions.