> On Jul 25, 2018, at 9:48 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:08:57 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>> On Jul 24, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles wrote:
Hi Rob.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob T
On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:08:57 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
On Jul 24, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Rob Tompkins
wrote:
On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles
wrote:
Hi Rob.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but
we
can at
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rob.
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>> I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but we
>>> can at least get closer to having
> On Jul 24, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Gilles wrote:
>
> Hi Rob.
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>> I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but we
>> can at least get closer to having determinism by running the same test
>> 1000 times and expecting som
Hi Rob.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 18:33:40 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
I know that the tests will be necessarily non-deterministic, but we
can at least get closer to having determinism by running the same
test
1000 times and expecting some reasonable number of passes right?
Could
we use the underlyi