Matthew Palmer wrote: [snip] > > > So what are the tests useful for, then? They're obviously useless as a > > > gauge of quality, because failing tests apparently don't indicate a flaw in > > > the software. > > > > A little common sense, please? The test results have to be interpreted > > by a human being. There are about twenty thousand tests and most > > architectures fail maybe a few dozen. > > Common sense would suggest that tests that have to be analysed by a human > being after every test run aren't particularly useful. Actually, skimming over the dozen or so failing ones, and recognizing they are the same as in the last run isn't that hard. > * The person needs to be sufficiently clued to work out which tests are > actually important and which ones are fluff. I couldn't make that call, if > buildd admins aren't compiler experts I wouldn't expect them to be able to > make that call, and I wouldn't expect them to need to. Buildlogs are public, and the test summary of a build is posted to -gcc. It doesn't go unchecked. Thiemo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature