Re: Test failures

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:00:44PM +0200, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 04:20:08AM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > I think it is excellent that developers are free to experiment and be
> > creative so long as they do not leave the tree in a state in which other
> > developers cannot work for long periods of time.  If you want a stable
> > branch -- we have several, use them!  From my point of view, if you want
> > the appropriate point at which to impose draconian requirements about what
> > code can and cannot be checked in based on failure counts from automated
> > tests, that point is when the code is designated as stable -- which, the
> > way the NetBSD repository and processes are organized, would be when it's
> > pulled up to a stable branch or when we declare HEAD frozen before a new
> > branch is created.
> 
> Well I don't agree that committing working code is a "draconian requirement".

I don't agree that "working" is a binary condition.  A change may fix
many things not covered by the existing test cases, or add important
new features, while causing one additional test failure.  In many
cases, such code may be code that should be committed and fixed in a
later commit.

Thor