On 10/27/23 18:05, Numan Siddique wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 2:12 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:52 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>
>>> If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
>>> doesn't auto-retry (once).
>>>
>>> There are some tests that ar
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 2:12 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:52 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> > If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
> > doesn't auto-retry (once).
> >
> > There are some tests that are still "unstable" and fail every now and
> >
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:52 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
> doesn't auto-retry (once).
>
> There are some tests that are still "unstable" and fail every now and
> then. In order to reduce the number of false negatives keep the
>
Bleep bloop. Greetings Dumitru Ceara, I am a robot and I have tried out your
patch.
Thanks for your contribution.
I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
checkpatch:
WARNING: Line is 85 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
#171 FILE: .github/workflows/tes
If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
doesn't auto-retry (once).
There are some tests that are still "unstable" and fail every now and
then. In order to reduce the number of false negatives keep the
--recheck for them. To achieve that we use a new macro, TAG_UNSTA
