From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilizations and src_test
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 11:21:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0bb176f457695f8638e46bf5049fa6c2a56893f5.camel@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2024416.irdbgypaU6@spectre>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1949 bytes --]
On Sun, 2020-04-12 at 10:43 +0200, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> If you work on the stabilization workflow you may have noticed that:
>
> - There are people that rant if you don't run src_test against their packages;
> - There are people that rant if you open a test failure bug against their
> packages and you block the stabilization.
>
> So, unless there will be a clear policy about that, I'd suggest to introduce a
> way to establish if a package is expected to pass src_test or not.
>
> A simple way to achieve this goal would be:
> introduce a new bugzilla custom flag (like "Runtime testing required" we
> already have) maybe called "src_test pass" or similar, that, by default is yes
> and the maintainer should set it to no when needed.
>
> In case of 'yes', the arch team member must compile with FEATURE="test" and he
> is allowed to block the stabilization in case of test-failure.
>
> In case there will be a test-failure there are two choices:
> 1) The maintainer fixes the test failure;
> 2) The maintainer does not want to take care, so he can simply remove the
> blocker and set "src_test pass" to no.
>
> Both of the above are fine for me.
>
> Obviously, if there are already test-failure bugs open, the flag "src_test
> pass" should be set to 'no' when the stabilization bugs is filled.
>
This is not a problem that can be solved by a binary flag.
If package's test suite is entirely broken and unmaintained, the package
should use RESTRICT=test and not silently ask arch teams to ignore it.
If package's test suite is only slightly broken, then I'd prefer saying
'please report but ignore *these* test failures' because I can't fix
them right now but they don't seem major. Skipping the test suite
entirely is not a solution because it doesn't disambiguate between 'few
tests fail' and 'every single test explodes'.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-12 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-12 8:43 [gentoo-dev] Stabilizations and src_test Agostino Sarubbo
2020-04-12 9:12 ` Marek Szuba
2020-04-12 9:21 ` Michał Górny [this message]
2020-04-12 9:33 ` Thomas Deutschmann
2020-04-12 11:58 ` Andreas Sturmlechner
2020-04-12 21:06 ` Patrick McLean
2020-04-12 10:56 ` James Le Cuirot
2020-04-16 10:00 ` Kent Fredric
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0bb176f457695f8638e46bf5049fa6c2a56893f5.camel@gentoo.org \
--to=mgorny@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox