Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.3-testing test] 24332: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.3-testing test] 24332: regressions 
- FAIL"):
> On 10.01.14 at 14:11, xen.org <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> >  build-amd64-oldkern        4 xen-build     fail in 24322 REGR. vs. 22383
> 
> So this succeeded in this run, yet blocks the push?

Yes, because it needed to consider flight 24322 to justify the next
two failures:

> > Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64  8 guest-saverestore   fail pass in 
> > 24322
> >  test-armhf-armhf-xl           6 capture-logs(6)  broken in 24322 pass in 
> > 24332

And if it disregarded the build failure in 24322 then it might fail to
pay proper attention to an actual regression which was masked
(blocked) by the build failure.

> > Regressions which are regarded as allowable (not blocking):
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install   fail like 
> > 24336-bisect
> 
> Whereas this one (which iirc blocked the previous two test runs
> from doing a push) is now considered allowable?

Yes, because 24336 proves it doesn't happen consistently.

Ian.

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