Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "prnnnn".
Did you mean:
prnnn
2016 Oct 03
2
[RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests
...mmon that is, although I'm
> > sure it does happen.
> > I think the overhead is worth the added value, but then I'm a process
> > kind of guy.
>
> I'm not saying I _like_ this solution, but if that were an issue we
> could always have an open issue e.g. "PRNNNN: Some tests are marked
> XFAIL but only have this generic PR listed as the reason", for use in
> these "quick fix" cases. It would also be easy to track if these
> "quick fixes" didn't happen shortly.
As David Blaikie mentioned, our bug hygiene is not really t...
2016 Sep 28
6
[RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests
On 28 September 2016 at 10:08, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I cannot think of any situation where a universally failing test
> should be in-tree unless it is a bug that someone is expecting to fix.
It seems moderately common to mark something XFAIL temporarily to get
the bots green while then going ahead to fix the issue. Your proposal
would add