On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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"? >
I agree, behind all these known pactest failures, there is usually a longer explanation on the ML or on the bug tracker. But then, a simple link inside the pactest would be enough. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
