On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:52:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 12:10:16 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > Just one comment: is 956ad3e71db9e46ce1ebad3b5fe5e5fd4b863815 ("always run
> > tests but ignore failures") really necessary?
>
> It seems so, if we want to run
On Tuesday 01 September 2015 12:10:16 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Just one comment: is 956ad3e71db9e46ce1ebad3b5fe5e5fd4b863815 ("always run
> tests but ignore failures") really necessary?
It seems so, if we want to run tests... I had to change previous approach to
run tests ("./test") because it
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:10:21AM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > Fair enough. They were passing originally, so this would be good to dig
> > into further. Anyway, not a blocker for uploading to unstable. Thanks
> > again for working on the package.
>
> No worries. :)
>
> Would it be OK with
> Fair enough. They were passing originally, so this would be good to dig
> into further. Anyway, not a blocker for uploading to unstable. Thanks
> again for working on the package.
No worries. :)
Would it be OK with you if I add myself to Uploaders?
--
Cheers,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
It is no
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 11:28:47PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 September 2015 12:59:15 Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > I'd prefer to not ignore failing tests,
>
> Me too. :)
>
> > so we notice when (new) failures are introduced.
>
> I reckon tests just need more work. Some network
