Re: [xen-4.11-testing test] 151295: regressions - FAIL

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [xen-4.11-testing test] 151295: regressions - FAIL"):
> On 23.06.2020 20:32, osstest service owner wrote:
> > flight 151295 xen-4.11-testing real [real]
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/151295/
> > 
> > Regressions :-(
> > 
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> >  build-amd64-prev              6 xen-build      fail in 151260 REGR. vs. 
> > 150040
> >  build-i386-prev               6 xen-build      fail in 151260 REGR. vs. 
> > 150040
> > 
> > Tests which are failing intermittently (not blocking):
> >  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-i386-xsm 10 debian-hvm-install fail 
> > pass in 151260
> > 
> > Tests which did not succeed, but are not blocking:
> 
> I'm once again struggling to see why there was no push here: The
> latter two groups both say "not blocking", and the two build-*-prev
> didn't actually fail here, but in an earlier flight. Without
> understanding the reason here I'm hesitant to suggest a force push,
> though.

osstest is using the earlier flight (151260) to justify considering
pushing despite test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-debianhvm-i386-xsm but that
means it wants a justification for all the failures in 151260 too.

Broadly speaking, this logic is necessary because failed tests can
block other tests.

I think this will succeed on the next run.

Ian.