I'll just note that we've had flaky tests for as long as I've been working on Juju, and there's never a "good" time to fix them. :)
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:48 AM Aaron Bentley <aaron.bent...@canonical.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2016-03-28 09:03 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > > Generally +1 on this, but I'm also intrigued by Martin's > > statistic... do we currently weight test failures by how likely > > they are to fail (i.e. how likely they are flaky)? That seems like > > it would be a great metric to use to decide which to fix first. > > We don't do it on the likelihood of failure, but we do it on the > frequency of failure. > > http://reports.vapour.ws/releases/top-issues > > I report on these on the cross-team call, and once the 2.0 settles > down, I'll be reporting them on the release call again. > > Aaron > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW+VJcAAoJEK84cMOcf+9hWrwH/0JradfscIE0wnt+yCW9nNCR > 9hTHI2U19v1VuP6pWI4UiC7srfojPI8EXXEXrrAhF9rT8tpVK4EcJRJK9RvWvvz5 > BEquHMS0+eROFOqDJFavEB8hU7BKHErzkSwSG8uKq7JuwHs9gNtQO9z9fIhVKjnr > aP4z2IliCqbYfXbupfSTD8TmqhI0AipQymTg3QB4C3sJdXzc5GjzIIckUo/X7aJj > zH1tEtlwOdP0c9F+8ZVs1j6AAkb+uDGc/1Qr4MT1kInqGkli2UNF4TOX/AihNPyH > iwYgq6O7uOkijFTrL9obRfbXxIFw1WCc9cYzxbRYnGfQff47Dyj7/BUStPPH0i0= > =8FQ6 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
