Web lists-archives.com

Re: aren't unreliable tests worse than none? (Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly)




Holger Levsen <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:29:28AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> This is, in a sense, an unreliable test, but it's not unreliable in a
>> way that directly affects the main line of package development.

> until someone affected wants to contribute…

Sure.  I think it's a hard classification question and I'm not fully
comfortable with any of the answers given.  For my own packages, I've
tried to stomp these bugs out entirely so that I don't have to worry about
whether they're RC or not (but was aided by the fact that I've mostly run
into them in cases where I'm also upstream, and as upstream I have a
committment to ensuring the test suite works on any platform on which it's
reasonable to install the software itself).  I've not run into any really
hard ones yet, though.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxx)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>