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/>