> I was thinking of adding some kind of "self.knownoutcome" flag to > pactest, and have that basically suppress the return code incrementing > if it was set to "fail" or something. (or just > self.knownfailure=true.) Does that make sense to anyone? The problem > is right now we have no way of distinguishing from fails like > fileconflict 001 & 002 (which we know will fail from now until they > are fixed) from fails that pop up after a patch has been applied. The > second ones are the regressions and the ones we really care about; the > first are not quite as important in a normal run of pactest. >
Hm. This inspired me to ask the following question: Shouldn't we document somewhere the "known issues"? Bye _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
