On 10/08/2015 02:08 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 10/08/2015 11:18 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 11:12:37AM +0200, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When the ticket is addressed and these workarounds are no longer
>>>> needed -- what is our process for finding these workarounds and
>>>> reverting them, so that the tests test the real, expected behaviour?
>>>
>>> As per discussion with Martin Basti, it was decided that this workaround
>>> will only be applied to the current 4-2 branch, not to the upstream. In
>>
>> That sounds like a reasonable plan for this issue.
>>
>>> upstream the issue itself will (supposedly) be solved
>>
>> Except currently it's not, so (IIUIC) you will keep having
>> nondeterministic failures in master.
>>
>> I was mostly interested in the general approach that we have to
>> workarounds -- how do we track them, how do we make sure they don't
>> stick in tests forever, even after the issue was already properly
>> addressed.
>>
> That's actually a great point. I personally would like tickets to have one 
> more
> field: "workaround" containing the address of a workaround in the format
> "path_to_the_file:line_number" or better even - a commit id of this 
> workaround,
> so that once the ticket is resolved, we could easily find what to reverse.
> 

Please don't add any more trac fields, there is too many of them already :-)
Keyword may serve better for now...

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to