| 1 |
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17 May 2016 at 20:46, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> And as for my pet peeve, tests that are known to fail, can we |
| 4 |
>> also annotate that somehow so I don't waste hours running a test |
| 5 |
>> suite that gives zero signal on whether I should add the stable |
| 6 |
>> keyword? Even a one-line hin in the stabilization request would |
| 7 |
>> be nice. As it is, I keep a list of known-to-fail packages and my |
| 8 |
>> testing machinery tells me to not bother with FEATURES=test in |
| 9 |
>> those case. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> IMO: Tests that are "expected to fail" should be killed. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That makes sense, though ironically the only specific hypothetical use |
| 15 |
case to come up so far was an example of just this situation. A |
| 16 |
package is broken in stable, and a test was proposed to detect if |
| 17 |
future stable candidates fix the flaw. There would be no point in |
| 18 |
delaying stabilization of a package that contains the same error as |
| 19 |
the current stable version. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't see any harm in adding support for automated Gentoo-specific |
| 22 |
tests, but I am skeptical of how much use they'll actually get. After |
| 23 |
all, we started off with the statement that this is for situations |
| 24 |
where upstream doesn't provide test suites, and if upstream can't be |
| 25 |
bothered, why would we expect a distro maintainer to care more? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives