On Mon, 12 Sep 2016, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:12:26AM +0530, Balasankar C wrote: > > On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 21:49:13 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > BTW: I think the "Randomized with seed xxx" above is a bad idea. > > > Maintainers often ask bug reporters for "a way to reproduce the error". > > > But if the build is based on random variables, this becomes an > > > impossible task. Please consider modifying the build system so that > > > those random things are always the same. > > > > I believe I have fixed this in the latest upload, in which I specified the > > order to run the tests. I tried building it 5 times in a cowbuilder > > environment > > and didn't hit any failures. Please reopen the bug if this problem persists. > > I think that in general 5 times is probably not enough. the last package > I fixed that failed randomly would fail 6% of the time (i.e. ~3 times > out of 50 attempts in my tests).
Indeed, for such a low probability it's better to try a lot of times to be sure. For this package, I have just built it 200 times and it failed none, so I believe that yes, it's fixed. [ Note: I have unarchived this bug to change the Subject, I never liked the "too much often" wording. Either it fails always, or it fails randomly. How often it fails should not really matter ] Thanks. _______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
