On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 16:01 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 03:21:14PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > But at some point it's just not practical.
>
> This is becoming interesting. So, would you be in favour of
> establishing some kind of "probability of failure"
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 03:21:14PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> But at some point it's just not practical.
This is becoming interesting. So, would you be in favour of
establishing some kind of "probability of failure" threshold under
which every FTBFS bug stop being severity:serious?
[ In
On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 15:16 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I disagree slightly.
Ok.
>
> If we allow the 24864 packages in stretch to fail to build 1% of the time,
> try to calculate the probability that you get no failures if you build
> all of them.
It's not a matter of “allowing”. We do know
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:51:50PM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 14:36 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The failure rate is about 1% or 2%.
> >
> > If you try to reproduce it please try a *lot* of times.
>
> Hi,
>
> at that point I don't think it's worth investing time
On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 14:36 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The failure rate is about 1% or 2%.
>
> If you try to reproduce it please try a *lot* of times.
Hi,
at that point I don't think it's worth investing time or disabling tests
altogether. If you come with a way to fix this then don't
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> I built strongswan 10 times in a row (using pbuilder and testing). No problem,
> esp. there were no failing tests.
>
> ???
The failure rate is about 1% or 2%.
If you try to reproduce it please try a *lot* of times.
Thanks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I built strongswan 10 times in a row (using pbuilder and testing). No problem,
esp. there were no failing tests.
???
Harri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEH2V614LbR/u1O+a1Cp4qnmbTgcsFAlhG07kACgkQCp4qnmbT
control: severity -1 important
control: tag -1 moreinfo
On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 10:05 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 23:13 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The failure happens randomly. Sometimes it fails, sometimes it does not.
>
> Check exactly where the testsuite fails,
On Sun, 2016-11-27 at 23:13 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The failure happens randomly. Sometimes it fails, sometimes it does not.
Check exactly where the testsuite fails, it might be lack of entropy. I'd
rather not disable the testsuite altogether, we already limit it to few
architectures to
9 matches
Mail list logo
