@matthias: That is the implicit policy right now. Seems not to work... On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Matthias J. Sax < mj...@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
> 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 > > > >
