On Wed, 5 Jan 2022 14:42:31 -0600 Bruce Dubbs <bruce.dubbs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > My point is that many of the tests fail. It's not that someone > should use the superblock v0.9. That's only an example. The test > should be removed or marked "Expected FAIL" or similar. Our users > run the tests as a confidence check that the build is successful. > They are generally not trying to debug the package. > > I can certainly say that the tests are broken and leave it at that. > If it were only a couple of tests that fail, we generally say > something like testA and testG are known to fail, but in this case > fully half of the tests fail. > > I would like to know what the maintainers think of the regression > tests. Are they maintained? Should they all pass? For our users > there are far too many tests to run them individually. > > -- Bruce > Hi Bruce, I can say that at least IMSM test are maintained and used regularly. You can use this subgroup. I can also see some test improvements submitted last time in mdadm repository, so I can assume that there are some usages outside IMSM (at least for 1.x metadata). Without continuous integration testing in upstream it is externally hard to have all tests in good shape. The verification is done by users, as you can see it is not used frequently. I'm closer to say that this part in not maintained. You can take a challenge and fix them :) Thanks, Mariusz
