On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:50:09PM +0000, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > On 10 Nov 2011, at 20:29, Anders Logg <l...@simula.no> wrote: > > > The problem appeared only on the buildbots (not locally) so they > > didn't show up until I pushed and I couldn't fix them without testing > > my fixes on the buildbots. > > > > Except for two small remaining bugs that I have now fixed that were > > part of the missing unit tests that should have been running but > > weren't. These could have been tested locally. > > > > I agree revert should be the policy if a new feature makes the > > buildbot break, but what about unit tests? > > > > Depends how quickly they can be fixed. Fine with me if fixed > quickly, but best commented out + bug report registered if the fix > will take some time.
Seems to work now, at least 1 out of 4 is green and the remaining 3 are building. I think we all agree on at least giving anyone breaking the buildbot a hard time. -- Anders > Garth > > > >> May I (again) suggest reverting in cases like this? Just disable the tests > >> again until you've fixed them, so you're not blocking the repository? > >> It is particularly important that the release branch stays green at all > >> times. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~dolfin Post to : dolfin@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~dolfin More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
