I basically agree that the current policy on not optimal. However, I would rather give failing tests "top priority" to get fixed (if possible within one/a-few days) and not disable them.
-Matthias On 06/04/2015 12:32 AM, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > Hey all, > > we have certain test cases, which are failing regularly on Travis. In all > cases I can think of we just keep the test activated. > > I think this makes it very hard for regular contributors to take these > failures seriously. I think the following situation is not unrealistic with > the current policy: I know that test X is failing. I don't know that person > Y fixed this test. I see test X failing (again for a different reason) and > think that it is a "known issue". > > I think a better policy is to just disable the test, assign someone to fix > it, and then only enable it again after someone has fixed it. > > Is this reasonable? Or do we have good reasons to keep such tests (there > are currently one or two) activated? > > – Ufuk >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
