Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 15401: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 14:22 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 15401: regressions 
> - FAIL"):
> > On Mon, 2013-02-04 at 11:17 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > >>> On 04.02.13 at 12:06, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-02-01 at 11:44 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > >> Under the circumstances it's not clear that the current staging is any
> > > >> worse than non-staging.  I think we should push the revision reported
> > > >> in this test (which was otherwise OK according to the tester) to
> > > >> non-staging, with a manual "hg push".
> > > > 
> > > > This sounds like a good idea.
> > > 
> > > Wouldn't that set us up for the same problem again when the next
> > > testing round fails here again?
> > 
> > Yes, that's true.
> 
> No.  Because the problem is essentially a fluke pass, not a fluke
> fail.

So you are also proposing to flip something in osstest to erase the
fluke pass from its memory? Otherwise won't it see all future fails as
regressions, rather than never pass, due to the fluke pass?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel