Re: Failing tests: please try to address these soon

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

Yes, they should be tagged as XFail, and PR(s) should also be filed and 
referenced in the XFail reason strings.


On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Greg Troxel wrote:

> Should these 50 new failures be marked as XFAIL?  I think it's important
> that we put (at least most) known to be broken tests as xfail so that
> the failed count being high is a sign of a regression.
>
> build: OK with 363358 lines of log, install: OK, tests: 3466 passed, 80 
> skipped, 59 expected_failure, 5 failed, ATF output: raw, xml, html
> commit 2013.06.26.19.29.24 reinoud src/tests/fs/common/Makefile 1.11
> commit 2013.06.26.19.29.24 reinoud src/tests/fs/common/fstest_udf.c 1.1
> commit 2013.06.26.19.29.24 reinoud src/tests/fs/common/h_fsmacros.h 1.38
> build: OK with 364703 lines of log, install: OK, tests: 3465 passed, 80 
> skipped, 59 expected_failure, 55 failed, ATF output: raw, xml, html
>
> !DSPAM:51d2ec92257149663017330!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:       |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com    |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer |                          | pgoyette at netbsd.org  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------