+1. Alan.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Thejas Nair <thejas.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > I agree, this makes sense. The number of failures keeps increasing. > A 24 hour heads up in either case before revert would be good. > > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:45 AM, Peter Vary <pv...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > I agree with Zoltan. The continuously braking tests make it very hard to > > spot real issues. > > Any thoughts on doing it automatically? > > > > > On Feb 22, 2018, at 10:47 AM, Zoltan Haindrich <k...@rxd.hu> wrote: > > > > > > * > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > ** > > > > > > In the last couple weeks the number of broken tests have started to go > > up...and even tho I run bisect/etc from time to time ; sometimes people > > don’t react to my comments/tickets/etc. > > > > > > Because keeping this many failing tests makes it easier for a new one > to > > slip in...I think reverting the patch introducing the test failures would > > also help in some case. > > > > > > I think it would help a lot to prevent further test breaks to revert > the > > patch if any of the following conditions is met: > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > C1) if the notification/comment about the fact that the patch indeed > > broken a test somehow have been unanswered for at least 24 hours. > > > > > > C2) if the patch is in for 7 days; but the test failure is still not > > addressed (note that in this case there might be a conversation about > > fixing it...but in this case ; to enable other people to work in a > cleaner > > environment is more important than a single patch - and if it can't be > > fixed in 7 days...well it might not get fixed in a month). > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > I would like to also note that I've seen a few tickets which have been > > picked up by people who were not involved in creating the original > change - > > and although the intention was good, they might miss the context of the > > original patch and may "fix" the tests in the wrong way: accept a q.out > > which is inappropriate or ignore the test... > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > would it be ok to implement this from now on? because it makes my > > efforts practically useless if people are not reacting… > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > note: just to be on the same page - this is only about running a single > > test which falls on its own - I feel that flaky tests are an entirely > > different topic. > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > cheers, > > > > > > Zoltan > > > > > > ** > > > * > > > > >
