Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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 (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
