[pkg-go] Bug#796400: Bug#796400: Bug#796400: Bug#796400: golang-github-jacobsa-ratelimit: Non-determistically FTBFS due to unreliable timing in tests

[Tianon Gravi]

On 18 February 2016 at 15:46, Tianon Gravi  wrote:
> Are there any other consumers of this ratelimit package that might warrant 
> some kind of workaround here?

Seems the answer to that is "not currently in the archive, there
aren't": ("dak rm -Rn golang-github-jacobsa-ratelimit")

Will remove the following packages from unstable:

golang-github-jacobsa-ratelimit | 0.0~git20150723.0.2ca5e0c-1 | source
golang-github-jacobsa-ratelimit-dev | 0.0~git20150723.0.2ca5e0c-1 | all

Maintainer: pkg-go 

--- Reason ---

--

Checking reverse dependencies...
No dependency problem found.

♥,
- Tianon
  4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36  4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

[pkg-go] Bug#796400: Bug#796400: Bug#796400: Bug#796400: golang-github-jacobsa-ratelimit: Non-determistically FTBFS due to unreliable timing in tests

[Tianon Gravi]

On 25 August 2015 at 10:21, Michael Stapelberg  wrote:
> I don’t think the intention of the test in question is to point out
> performance regressions, so while I agree with your general statement
> about flakyness in general, I’m not convinced it applies here.

Is it worth adding a Debian patch for that test to include a
"t.Skip()" for now to at least clear out the RC bug, or are you still
considering doing an RM of gcsfuse entirely?  Are there any other
consumers of this ratelimit package that might warrant some kind of
workaround here?

♥,
- Tianon
  4096R / B42F 6819 007F 00F8 8E36  4FD4 036A 9C25 BF35 7DD4

___
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers