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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 10.01.14 at 14:59, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.3-testing test] 24332: 
> regressions - 
> FAIL"):
>> On 10.01.14 at 14:48, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> 
>> Does it? To me it looks like there were only failures since yesterday's
>> new commits went in - I don't recall having seen a flight report with
>> this not failing (but then again the names of the tests are similar
>> enough that I may mix things up).
> 
> You wouldn't have seen 24336 because it was part of an attempt as
> bisection.  The bisection flights' reports aren't emailed to xen-devel
> because they're very numerous.

I understand that.

>> >> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-winxpsp3  7 windows-install   fail like 
>> >> > 24336-bisect

My point was that this says "fail like 24336-bisect", not "failed in
24332, passed in 24336-bisect", i.e. the above only gives
confirmation that there's a problem, not whether some flight had
no problem.

Jan


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