This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PSA: glibc buildbot slave up for aarch64
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > It's a lot friendlier for users and distributors if our collective
> > knowledge about expected failures is reflected in XFAILs (with appropriate
> > comments referencing the bugs in Bugzilla) than if people need to refer to
> > lists on the wiki to identify whether particular failures are known.
>
> For that the XFAILs should have an additional reference point than just
> bugzilla reports. The red status on buildbot is an eye-sore and I am
> hoping that the eyesore will drive at least some of us to try and fix it.
Well, you could have an orthogonal measure of port status distinct from
"are there regressions yet to be analysed", without hiding new regressions
because of an always-present failure.
> and it shouldn't be a rule set in stone. What I want to convey is that
> the XFAIL mechanism doesn't mean anything useful currently other than
> using it to make buildbot statuses green and that is only going to
> result in more bugs being pushed under the rug.
It achieves that everyone testing on a platform doesn't need to rediscover
for themselves what is or is not a known failure. It achieves that
distributors don't all need to replicate the same list of known failures
locally. It achieves that when a regression occurs on a platform it
actually becomes visible in the results of buildbots rather than being
hidden by an old known failure.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com