yes, but not by CC, and also, if we can find a way to tag them in the
output so when we see a failure, and it's tagged as "intermittent",
the developer knows to run it again rather than go hunting.
<soapbox>
I really do think that we'd be well served by fixing the intermittent
tests - they point at something broken that we just don't understand,
and that gives me the heebie-jeebies. I don't mind things that are
known to be broken, if we understand why, but mysteries? no thanks :)
</soapbox>
geir
On Mar 12, 2007, at 10:00 AM, Alexey Petrenko wrote:
+1 for running intermittently failed tests by default
2007/3/12, Vladimir Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hello everyone,
I want to discuss issue 3352 while it changes the current behavior of
excluding policy for intermittently failed tests. I suggest running
intermittently failed test by default. So the resulting exclude list
by default will be combined as common + platform instead of common +
platform + intermittent.
Is it OK?
thanks, Vladimir
