On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Comments on the principle of keeping build and test results clean?
>
> Agreed. This was asserted as a responsibility of committers in the past,
> though occasional carelessness has always occurred.
There's also the related question when committing someone else's patch of
whether the submitter should be presumed to have tested the patch or
whether the committer needs to retest it.
> It should be noted that various NPTL tests have often been flaky on common
> systems due to kernel bugs that are outside out control. So some tests
> might only be expected to reliably pass on a very recent kernel. It's
> probably the case that the last such fixes were long enough ago that "very
> recent" is not today applicable in any absolute sense, but that issue is
> sure to arise again.
The rt/tst-cpuclock2 failure was explained in
<
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-02/msg00468.html> as resulting
from a kernel bug fixed only last September, so the issue is still pretty
current.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@...
