From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29274 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2003 15:32:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29262 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2003 15:32:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 4 Feb 2003 15:32:38 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h14FBYB15327; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:11:34 -0600 Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 15:32:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302041511.h14FBYB15327@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu, drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [patch] KFAIL gdb/1025 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00116.txt.bz2 drow> I'm really not comfortable with this use of KFAIL. My hope was that we drow> would analyze particular failures before KFAILing them off to oblivion. drow> I spent time fixing these exact six failures a bit under a month ago; drow> if it isn't working for your setup I want more information. Well, there's a tension between 'getting work done' and 'checking with other people'. In this particular case, waiting a few hours would have drawn some info from me and Daniel J. We can't win them all. I'm more concerned about the 'KFAILing them off to oblivion'. I foresee that we are going to have a culture clash over KFAIL. To me, KFAIL means that the bug is known; but to everybody else, it's going to take on the meaning that the bug is low-priority. These properties are orthogonal but I can see KFAIL taking on that twisted connotation. Michael C