(Andreas J. Koenig) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:22:20 +1100, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. Broken or corrupt packaging.
> A bad tarball, MANIFEST files missing.
Make sure you verify that all files in the distro are readable. Reject
if the permissions are bogus. Recentl
While an interesting idea, I forsee two challenges to doing this...
Firstly is that it might turn an otherwise normal result into something
else, with no clear rule. It makes a judgement call that some level of
testing is good or bad, which isn't really the place of an installer to
call.
The
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
Tests run, but >50% (or maybe >80%?) are skipped.
From what I've seen, the most common cause of this is that the
package is untestable with the current build configuration. Eg; you
needed
to specify a webserver or database or something to get these tests
Tyler MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam,
> I have one more edgey case I'd like to see on this list:
> Tests run, but >50% (or maybe >80%?) are skipped.
>
> From what I've seen, the most common cause of this is that the
> package is untestable with the current build
Adam,
I have one more edgey case I'd like to see on this list:
>
> 13. Tests exist, but fail to be executed.
> There is tests, but the tests themselves aren't failing.
> It's the build-process that is failing.
>
> 14. Tests run, and some/all tests fail.
> The normal FAIL case
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:22:20 +1100, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1. Broken or corrupt packaging.
> A bad tarball, MANIFEST files missing.
Make sure you verify that all files in the distro are readable. Reject
if the permissions are bogus. Recently we had an increasig nu
I'm starting to get a bit closer (waiting on a test images and some last
testing to be done) to finishing the initial PITA test cycle (and thus
be able to do an initial release) and so I'm starting to do some prep
work now for the next stage, which is to start to assemble some
infrastructure ar