Yes, they should be tagged as XFail, and PR(s) should also be filed and
referenced in the XFail reason strings.
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013, Greg Troxel wrote:
Should these 50 new failures be marked as XFAIL? I think it's important
that we put (at least most) known to be broken tests as xfail so that
the failed count being high is a sign of a regression.
build: OK with 363358 lines of log, install: OK, tests: 3466 passed, 80
skipped, 59 expected_failure, 5 failed, ATF output: raw, xml, html
commit 2013.06.26.19.29.24 reinoud src/tests/fs/common/Makefile 1.11
commit 2013.06.26.19.29.24 reinoud src/tests/fs/common/fstest_udf.c 1.1
commit 2013.06.26.19.29.24 reinoud src/tests/fs/common/h_fsmacros.h 1.38
build: OK with 364703 lines of log, install: OK, tests: 3465 passed, 80
skipped, 59 expected_failure, 55 failed, ATF output: raw, xml, html
!DSPAM:51d2ec92257149663017330!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette | PGP Key fingerprint: | E-mail addresses: |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer | | pgoyette at netbsd.org |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
