On Feb 12, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Barbie wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:17:24PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure Metabase has enough resolution right now to determine when a >> test has an alpha dependency, maybe not all the way down the dependency chain >> but at least direct dependencies. > > In this instance a secondary distribution is at fault, but the automated > system has no way of determining that. It needs a human to see that it > relates to another distribution. Although we may be able to write an > automated parser to spot some cases, more often than not it won't see > them, unless we write a specific case. > > We cannot automatically assume that a development release is at fault > either. The calling distribution may have relied on a deprecated > feature, or another distribution with an official release may have > tripped the fault. What if there are two development distributions, > which one would we determine was at fault?
I think in the past, it's been brought up that people would love a way to flag their failed tests, when on reviewing the test, it's clear the fault lies elsewhere. Could the flagging somehow be the solution to the "Alpha" problem also? My first thought would be that it would risk a virtual finger pointing competition, but with voting/reputation, but I think that could be worked out with voting/reputation if need be. Todd
