+1
On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 5:06 AM Vikram Koka
wrote:
> +1
> I vehemently agree
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 2:53 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:31 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>>
>>> +1 - Agree with the Proposal, will take care of it myself too
>>>
>>> On Thu,
+1
I vehemently agree
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 2:53 PM Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:31 AM Kaxil Naik wrote:
>
>> +1 - Agree with the Proposal, will take care of it myself too
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 5:21 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Given the work yo
+1 - Agree with the Proposal, will take care of it myself too
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 5:21 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor wrote:
> Given the work you and the Outreachy interns?) have put in to fix the
> previous flaky tests I 100% agree.
>
> Main is now in much better state with greatly reduced number of f
Given the work you and the Outreachy interns?) have put in to fix the previous
flaky tests I 100% agree.
Main is now in much better state with greatly reduced number of flaky
tests/false negatives, so yes, if we see a build fail it should be treated as
a real failure.
On 6 January 2022 10:39:
Hey everyone,
I know we had quite a long period of flaky tests and accepting the
fact that we merge PRs with some tests failing because of the
flakiness.
However I think over a couple of months or so we have invested heavily
into fixing it - a number of people tracked and fixed a big number of
f
