bug#23521: XFAIL

2016-05-20 Thread Mathieu Lirzin
Reuben Thomas writes: > On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: > > > It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so > that > > they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for > example, an > > extra driver that

bug#23521: XFAIL

2016-05-20 Thread Reuben Thomas
On 20 May 2016 at 15:58, Gavin Smith wrote: > On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: > >> It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so that > >> they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for example, an > >> extra

bug#23521: XFAIL

2016-05-20 Thread Gavin Smith
On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin wrote: >> It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so that >> they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for example, an >> extra driver that converts expected errors into success codes for the >> automake test