[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)

 ❦ 20 février 2017 13:44 GMT, Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> :

>> 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.)

We are speaking of tests that succeed reliably on the packager's own builder.
Replace repetitive expressions by calls to a common function.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: