[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: aren't unreliable tests worse than none? (Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly)

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 01:46:20PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> As a rule of thumb, upstream usually knows better than me which tests
> are important. Tests are quite important for the packager to know if
> they didn't make an obvious mistake when updating a package (e.g new
> dependency missing, something easy to miss by testing manually). Test
> are quite important in a team as you may have to update the package
> while knowing little about it (e.g adding a security patch).

I get why tests are useful. I just think unreliable tests do more harm then
good. (Mostly because this leads to ignoring those tests completely. BTDT.)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: