Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:29:22 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-testing@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD CI Weekly Report 2019-03-24 Message-ID: <CAPyFy2B8F83fdC40L23%2B0wtFO50S115riU7Vhx-eEiEE517Pcw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAKBkRUz5zBfn=Aw4R_Z3mUgcxi55EBkOpKKSpAYyL=3r8iZkPQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKBkRUz5zBfn=Aw4R_Z3mUgcxi55EBkOpKKSpAYyL=3r8iZkPQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:26, Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org> wrote: > > * 2286 builds (98.3% passed, 1.7% failed) were executed on aarch64, > amd64, armv6, armv7, i386, mips, mips64, powerpc, powerpc64, > powerpcspe, riscv64, sparc64 architectures for head, stable/12, > stable/11 branches. This is pretty good news - HEAD is almost always in a buildable state. > * 498 test runs (37.3% passed, 60.7% unstable, 2% exception) were > executed on amd64, i386, riscv64 architectures for head, stable/12, > stable/11 branches. This is not so good, almost two thirds of test runs don't pass. Does it make sense to submit PRs for the current known issues and then either XFAIL or disable those tests, so that CI will highlight newly introduced failures?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2B8F83fdC40L23%2B0wtFO50S115riU7Vhx-eEiEE517Pcw>