I'm also in favour of quickly fixing the failing test cases but I think that blocking the master is a kind of drastic measure. IMO this creates a culture of blaming someone whereas I would prefer a more proactive approach. When you see a failing test case and know that someone recently worked on it, then ping him because maybe he can quickly fix it or knows about it. If he's not available, e.g. holidays, busy with other stuff, etc., then maybe one can investigate the problem oneself and fix it.
But this is basically our current approach and I don't know how to enforce this policy by some means. Maybe it's making people more aware of it and motivating people to have a stable master. Cheers, Till On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Matthias J. Sax < mj...@informatik.hu-berlin.de> wrote: > I think, people should be forced to fixed failing tests asap. One way to > go, could be to lock the master branch until the test is fixed. If > nobody can push to the master, pressure is very high for the responsible > developer to get it done asap. Not sure if this is Apache compatible. > > Just a thought (from industry experience). > > > On 06/04/2015 08:10 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > 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 > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > >
