| 1 |
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 17 May 2016 at 20:46, Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> And as for my pet peeve, tests that are known to fail, can we |
| 7 |
> >> also annotate that somehow so I don't waste hours running a test |
| 8 |
> >> suite that gives zero signal on whether I should add the stable |
| 9 |
> >> keyword? Even a one-line hin in the stabilization request would |
| 10 |
> >> be nice. As it is, I keep a list of known-to-fail packages and my |
| 11 |
> >> testing machinery tells me to not bother with FEATURES=test in |
| 12 |
> >> those case. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > IMO: Tests that are "expected to fail" should be killed. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> That makes sense, though ironically the only specific hypothetical use |
| 18 |
> case to come up so far was an example of just this situation. A |
| 19 |
> package is broken in stable, and a test was proposed to detect if |
| 20 |
> future stable candidates fix the flaw. There would be no point in |
| 21 |
> delaying stabilization of a package that contains the same error as |
| 22 |
> the current stable version. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I don't see any harm in adding support for automated Gentoo-specific |
| 25 |
> tests, but I am skeptical of how much use they'll actually get. After |
| 26 |
> all, we started off with the statement that this is for situations |
| 27 |
> where upstream doesn't provide test suites, and if upstream can't be |
| 28 |
> bothered, why would we expect a distro maintainer to care more? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -- |
| 31 |
> Rich |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Because we are already expecting an arch tester to conduct tests for the |
| 34 |
package. And knowing what to test is something I expect to come more |
| 35 |
easily from the maintainer. |
Archives