Michael Brown has posted comments on this change.

Change subject: IMPALA-3718: Support subset of functional-query for Kudu
......................................................................


Patch Set 2: Code-Review+1

> My thought with xfail was that I wanted them to show up as xfail so
 > we see them and have an incentive to fix them in the future.

That's fair. I was coming from the standpoint of:

1. No one really reads the ends of these tests reports and notices an increase 
or decrease in XFAILs or SKIPs. Nothing consumes those counts, or tracks them 
on a wallboard, for instance.

2. When reading test code, it's odd to see explicit xfail() calls. I associate 
xfail() with "I am executing this test and expect it to fail." Typically I see 
it as a mark on a test.

However, I don't feel strongly about these things. If the xfails incentivize 
you, that's fine. They can stay.

Thanks too for running an exhaustive test. I think you should probably rebase 
this before you submit and run GVO.

-- 
To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/4175
To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings

Gerrit-MessageType: comment
Gerrit-Change-Id: Iada88e078352e4462745d9a9a1b5111260d21acc
Gerrit-PatchSet: 2
Gerrit-Project: Impala-ASF
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Owner: Matthew Jacobs <m...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Matthew Jacobs <m...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Michael Brown <mi...@cloudera.com>
Gerrit-HasComments: No

Reply via email to