On 6/1/14, 4:41 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> I can't speak for other people, but please consider reporting issues >> to Gentoo first. Our bug queue is under 30 bugs, while upstream is >> several thousand. Once we can confirm a bug clearly belongs to >> upstream, we can tell the reporter to file bug upstream or do that >> ourselves, but keeping Gentoo out of the loop seems to increase the >> time needed to fix a bug. > > This confuses me; your thread opener seems to suggest you have too much > bugs, whereas this one seems to suggest you don't have enough bugs.
Encouraging people to report bugs to Gentoo is not the same as saying we don't have enough bugs. My goal is to make sure the package works well, and I can't fix problems I don't know about. > Iotw, why are you making a project-internal decision here? Please refer to my first post - just checking whether there is something I may have missed, or some volunteers to help us with the tests. > Yeah; if failing tests on distributions aren't getting fixed by > upstream, then there's indeed no point to keep them running. > > Though; on the other hand, one has to consider that this acts like a > priority queue and therefore tests that fail on most distributions would > get fixed before tests that fail on just one or two distributions. I haven't seen that happening for Chromium. > It's a tricky decision to drop them; but it's not an irreversible > decision, thus a reevaluation in 5 years from now could be possible. If > that reevaluation then shows a responsive upstream, reconsider src_test. Yes, totally agreed. > Don't mind me, I've played devil's advocate to explore the reasoning; > go ahead if you want to, given it barely result in fatal test failures. OK. Paweł
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
