I tend to agree with Ufuk, although it would be nice to fix them very quickly.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Stephan Ewen <se...@apache.org> wrote: > @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 >> > >> >>
