> > We're getting close to that point again where nothing can pass, > including patches to fix regression tests, because even those can't get > past the gauntlet of spurious failures on other tests. Poornima > recently sent out a very helpful list of failures requiring further > investigation: > > http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2016-April/049016.html > > I'll repeat some of the most pertinent info here: > > ./tests/basic/tier/tier.t > ./tests/bugs/quick-read/bug-846240.t > ./tests/basic/afr/self-heal.t > ./tests/basic/quota-untar.t > ./tests/bugs/disperse/bug-1161621.t > ./tests/bugs/quota/bug-1293601.t > ./tests/bugs/protocol/bug-808400-repl.t > ./tests/bugs/replicate/bug-1297695.t > ./tests/basic/uss.t > ./tests/basic/ec/ec-background-heals.t > ./tests/basic/afr/gfid-self-heal.t > ./tests/basic/nsr/nsr.t > ./tests/bugs/tier/bug-1279376-rename-demoted-file.t I'll take a look at this one. Regards, Nithya > ./tests/basic/quota-anon-fd-nfs.t > ./tests/bugs/snapshot/bug-1109889.t > ./tests/bugs/glusterd/bug-1209329_daemon-svcs-on-reset-volume.t > > If you are responsible for any of these tests, please take a moment to > check and see if there's either a real bug to be fixed or something that > you can do to make the test more reliable. > > Also, I'd like to make a suggestion. Could we make it so that patches > which only change a test only run that test, instead of going through a > full run of every other test that might randomly fail? Seems like it > would save a lot of time and aggravation. > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-devel mailing list > Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel > _______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
