On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 19:29:58 -0400, Patrick Crews <[email protected]> wrote: > As this test will be failing until this bug gets fixed, I was wondering if / > how we ever disable tests and if you thought the failing test here should > be. I noticed some randgen tests were commented out as needing > investigation in the drizzle-automation config files - I'll be getting to > these soon.
I'd like us to a) get that mtr2 port back b) patch the test-run script to allow known failures. not disabled tests (we want to make sure things fail in the same way), but tests that are known bugs (and show up as such, not "passed"). Otherwise, the general way to do it has just been to attach the test and result to the bug report. > This leads into my second question - I want to make sure bugs get assigned > and don't just hang around neglected - is it sort of a grab-bag / whoever > gets to it? If that is the case, do you guys have a preferred method of > being asked / nagged to take a bug ; ) Having how critical they are can help - and we should probably all take more bugs to fix. generally we've assigned bugs to those who know the area of code the best or those of us who it the bug. Opportunity for improved process here. -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
