On 20 February 2018 at 10:12, Stephan Bergmann <sberg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 17.02.2018 07:54, Noel Grandin wrote: > >> at the very least we should make that wait command use a timeout, and >> fail the test, rather than hanging indefinitely >> > > As long as its unclear what the underlying problem is, what benefit does > it have to add a timeout failure path in the test? Without the added > timeout, a local failed test will be ready to be inspected (and moggi now > gave suggestions what exactly to inspect in another mail in this thread). > And failed tests on the tinderboxes will eventually time out either way. > > My thinking is that it's better to fail sooner rather than tying up the box for the hour or so it takes before the build timeout kicks in. But yeah, it is now harder to catch the thing locally.
_______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
