Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

I can take a look at the KFAIL stuff this weekend if you want.

But if the ample majority wants to try again [2] and is willing to
work in establishing polices to try and make that work
this time and is willing to help enforcing those polices I would
agree with that.

So, I am for [3]->[2']->[0']

2' - [2] with extrict polices to prevent xfails to be forgotten.

0' - [0] but the tests are saved somewhere, so they are added
     when the fix goes in.

Fernando

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> It sounds like we understand the alternatives and everyone's got opinions
> about them.
> 
>   [0] Status quo
>   [1] FAIL the test
>   [2] XFAIL the test
>   [3] KFAIL the test
> 
> I'm concerned that for each alternative, someone will find a flaw, and
> therefore we'll stick with [0] and keep rejecting useful tests.
> 
> Fernando and Daniel and Andrew, I'd like to hold your feet to the fire:
> Can you please rank these in priority order and indicate how many of the
> high priority ones are acceptable.
> 
> Also there may very well be a [4] that I haven't heard of or thought of.
> 
> My rank is [2] > [1] > [3] > [0].  [2], [1], and [3] are acceptable to me.
> [0] is not.
> 
> Michael C

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9