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

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Ian.

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