<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Harshavardhana <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harsha@harshavardhana.net" target="_blank">harsha@harshavardhana.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Atin Mukherjee <<a href="mailto:amukherj@redhat.com">amukherj@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> IIRC, we were marking the verified as +1 in case of a known spurious<br>
> failure, can't we continue to do the same for the known spurious<br>
> failures just to unblock the patches getting merged till the problems<br>
> are resolved?<br>
<br>
</div>While its understood that such is the case, the premise is rather<br>
wrong - we should run<br>
a spurious failure again and get the "+1" since we know it only fails<br>
spuriously :-). If it fails<br>
consistently then there is something odd with the patch. All it<br>
requires is another trigger in<br>
Jenkins.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>+1. Providing a manual verified vote for spurious test failures is an interim workaround and should not be utilized for an extended period of time. That is one of the prime reasons why we have only very few folks that can provide a +1 verified vote.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In addition, we cannot have a test case with spurious failure(s) being in the repository for long. Carrying such test cases can only confuse those who are not aware of known spurious failures. We need to have a better turnaround time for such test cases or temporarily drop them from the repository. </div>
<div><br></div><div>-Vijay</div></div></div></div>