On 7/11/23 11:59, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 7/11/23 10:30, Ales Musil wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 7:14 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:26 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>>
If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
doesn't auto-re
On 7/11/23 10:30, Ales Musil wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 7:14 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:26 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>
>>> If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
>>> doesn't auto-retry (once).
>>>
>>> There are some tests that ar
On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 7:14 AM Ales Musil wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:26 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
>> If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
>> doesn't auto-retry (once).
>>
>> There are some tests that are still "unstable" and fail every now and
>> the
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:26 PM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
> doesn't auto-retry (once).
>
> There are some tests that are still "unstable" and fail every now and
> then. In order to reduce the number of false negatives keep the
>
Bleep bloop. Greetings Dumitru Ceara, I am a robot and I have tried out your
patch.
Thanks for your contribution.
I encountered some error that I wasn't expecting. See the details below.
checkpatch:
WARNING: Line is 85 characters long (recommended limit is 79)
#171 FILE: .github/workflows/tes
If we want to catch new failures faster we have a better chance if CI
doesn't auto-retry (once).
There are some tests that are still "unstable" and fail every now and
then. In order to reduce the number of false negatives keep the
--recheck for them. To achieve that we use a new macro, TAG_UNSTA
