On 25 August 2015 at 10:21, Michael Stapelberg <stapelb...@debian.org> wrote: > I don’t think the intention of the test in question is to point out > performance regressions, so while I agree with your general statement > about flakyness in general, I’m not convinced it applies here.
Is it worth adding a Debian patch for that test to include a "t.Skip()" for now to at least clear out the RC bug, or are you still considering doing an RM of gcsfuse entirely? Are there any other consumers of this ratelimit package that might warrant some kind of workaround here? ♥, - Tianon 4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36 4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4 _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
