1 |
On 6/1/14, 4:41 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
2 |
>> I can't speak for other people, but please consider reporting issues |
3 |
>> to Gentoo first. Our bug queue is under 30 bugs, while upstream is |
4 |
>> several thousand. Once we can confirm a bug clearly belongs to |
5 |
>> upstream, we can tell the reporter to file bug upstream or do that |
6 |
>> ourselves, but keeping Gentoo out of the loop seems to increase the |
7 |
>> time needed to fix a bug. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> This confuses me; your thread opener seems to suggest you have too much |
10 |
> bugs, whereas this one seems to suggest you don't have enough bugs. |
11 |
|
12 |
Encouraging people to report bugs to Gentoo is not the same as saying we |
13 |
don't have enough bugs. My goal is to make sure the package works well, |
14 |
and I can't fix problems I don't know about. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Iotw, why are you making a project-internal decision here? |
17 |
|
18 |
Please refer to my first post - just checking whether there is something |
19 |
I may have missed, or some volunteers to help us with the tests. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Yeah; if failing tests on distributions aren't getting fixed by |
22 |
> upstream, then there's indeed no point to keep them running. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Though; on the other hand, one has to consider that this acts like a |
25 |
> priority queue and therefore tests that fail on most distributions would |
26 |
> get fixed before tests that fail on just one or two distributions. |
27 |
|
28 |
I haven't seen that happening for Chromium. |
29 |
|
30 |
> It's a tricky decision to drop them; but it's not an irreversible |
31 |
> decision, thus a reevaluation in 5 years from now could be possible. If |
32 |
> that reevaluation then shows a responsive upstream, reconsider src_test. |
33 |
|
34 |
Yes, totally agreed. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Don't mind me, I've played devil's advocate to explore the reasoning; |
37 |
> go ahead if you want to, given it barely result in fatal test failures. |
38 |
|
39 |
OK. |
40 |
|
41 |
Paweł |