On Tue, 27 May 2014 09:02:37 +0200 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It's more of a project-internal decision IMHO, but just wanted to get > feedback from the larger community. > > Currently 11 out of 27 bugs assigned to chromium.g.o are related to test > failures. > > I don't remember a single case where a test failure would point to a > real bug in our package. > > I'm seriously considering just removing src_test to make the package > more maintainable (less code, less bugs filed, can focus on things that > *do* impact our users). > > If you decide to comment in favor of keeping src_test, please consider > volunteering to help us with the bugs. > > Feel free to suggest solutions that fall somewhere in between - e.g. > having src_test but not excluding any tests there and using > RESTRICT=test, so that someone who really wants to run the tests FYI can > do so. I've said it before, but I think that by having packages in the tree that we know consistently fail their testsuites, we create a situation where we are worse off than if we simply disabled the tests for that package. Let's look at what enabling tests gets you right now: - additional dependencies - longer compile times - blockers - lots of scrolly output - devs ignore your bug reports - absolutely no peace of mind because every third package fails for no good reason If I wasn't a dev I would have turned it off long long ago (and I suspect many already have). Test coverage is a good thing, so it'd be nice to give people an actual incentive to do it. So +1. -- Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
