From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2693 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 18:06:29 -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 2541 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 18:06:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 18:06:22 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (rtl.cygnus.com [205.180.230.21]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA06387; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:06:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C73E572.ECEEEF5E@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:06:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-21 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain CC: ac131313@cygnus.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp References: <200202201749.g1KHnlv04009@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00552.txt.bz2 I can take a look at the KFAIL stuff this weekend if you want. But if the ample majority wants to try again [2] and is willing to work in establishing polices to try and make that work this time and is willing to help enforcing those polices I would agree with that. So, I am for [3]->[2']->[0'] 2' - [2] with extrict polices to prevent xfails to be forgotten. 0' - [0] but the tests are saved somewhere, so they are added when the fix goes in. Fernando Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > It sounds like we understand the alternatives and everyone's got opinions > about them. > > [0] Status quo > [1] FAIL the test > [2] XFAIL the test > [3] KFAIL the test > > I'm concerned that for each alternative, someone will find a flaw, and > therefore we'll stick with [0] and keep rejecting useful tests. > > Fernando and Daniel and Andrew, I'd like to hold your feet to the fire: > Can you please rank these in priority order and indicate how many of the > high priority ones are acceptable. > > Also there may very well be a [4] that I haven't heard of or thought of. > > My rank is [2] > [1] > [3] > [0]. [2], [1], and [3] are acceptable to me. > [0] is not. > > Michael C -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9