+1 to "could be seen in CI"
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe the name "CI" is slightly misleading. I think all we really want is a > list of all bugs that are due to a failure of an existing dunit/junit test > (in other words, bugs that can be seen in CI). So I think any failure that > happens from an existing test should get this label. If you think the label > should be called something else, that's fine by me. > > -Dan > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Kirk Lund <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've seen a few JIRA tickets filed against tests that failed in a private > > build (of develop without any changes) get labeled with "CI" -- since the > > test didn't fail in CI, should we come up with a different label for > > apparently spurious failures to indicate unreliable tests that failed > > outside of CI? > > > > -Kirk > > >
