>> Yup, we can pass an excluded test list. I really wish they'd fix their >> tests, but I've been saying that for 6 years now, and it hasn't happened >> yet ;-( > > I would slightly disagree to that. 6 years is history. But, have you > recently checked with LTP ?
I hate to be completely cynical about this, but that's exactly the same message I get every year. Yes, absolute, the best thing would be for someone to run all the tests, work through all the problems, categorize them as kernel / library / distro, and get each of them fixed. However, it's a fair chunk of work that I don't have time to do. So all I'm saying is that I know which of the current tests we have issues with, and I don't want to upgrade LTP without a new set of data, and that work being done. From previous experience, I would be extremely surprised if there's not at least one new problem, and I'm not just going to dump that on users. Does the LTP project do this itself on a regular basis ... ie are you running LTP against the latest kernel (or even some known stable kernel) and seeing which tests are broken? If you can point me to that, I'd have much more faith about picking this up ... Up until this point we've not even managed to agree that PASS means "ran as expected" and FAIL meant "something is wrong". LTP always had "expected failures" which seems like a completely broken model to me. M. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
