Web lists-archives.com

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




Ian Jackson <ijackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:

>> The point is that they don't randomly fail in the sense that they don't
>> fail n% of the time when run in any possible build environment.
>> Rather, in the subset of cases we're talking about in this thread, the
>> tests work reliably on the developer's machine and on the buildd
>> network, but fail either reliably or randomly in other build
>> environments.
>> 
>> 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.

> I find this argument, from a Debian Developer, utterly outrageous.

I find it mildly irritating that you are attributing to me some sort of
argument, when instead I made several factual statements and carefully and
very intentionally refused to draw a conclusion from them.  I was simply
trying to provide some additional context because I thought two thread
participants were talking past each other and not talking about the same
thing.

Nowhere in the above did I say that we shouldn't care about the bugs
because they don't directly affect the main line of package development.

In retrospect, I could have made it clearer that I was doing that and that
I wasn't intending to hint at an argument, but also please extend to other
people the benefit of the doubt.

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