From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OKaFp-0000Nq-TR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:00:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F13BE0CAA; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl [194.109.24.39]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF71E098A for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:00:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from epia.jer-c2.orkz.net (atwork-106.r-212.178.112.atwork.nl [212.178.112.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-vbr19.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o54H0AYl087586 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 19:00:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jer@gentoo.org) Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 19:00:09 +0200 From: Jeroen Roovers To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: changing the developer profile: FEATURES="test" -> FEATURES="test-fail-continue" Message-ID: <20100604190009.4a82634a@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> In-Reply-To: <20100604184838.77e5e331@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> References: <4C0917B1.8080307@gentoo.org> <20100604184838.77e5e331@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Archives-Salt: 850c9cd0-6c80-45c3-b6c2-d4c2fa406116 X-Archives-Hash: 6265a73ecadf128eea8cfcb972d2b16b On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:48:38 +0200 Jeroen Roovers wrote: > [1] I've seen developers complain more and more about failing test > suites. Maybe that's a related issue? Developers now use the > FEATURES set out in a developer profile and can then extract some > kind of validity claim from the fact that I obviously didn't do my QA? > That would explain a lot. That came out wrong. s|from the fact|to the effect|