Re: Parallel test execution: new option `parallel-tests': [1/4]

[Ralf Wildenhues]

Hi Akim,

again, thanks for your and Jim's valuable feedback!

* Akim Demaille wrote on Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 04:58:48PM CEST:
> 
> The logic to create this kind of message is really complex, and in
> retrospect, I don't think that the message delivered is much easier to
> read than something more regular.  So currently check.mk does as
> follows:

Hmm.  I'm still thinking about which type of summary I prefer.
(Anyway your current summary would need singular/plurals fixed.)

> We introduced TFAIL, temporary failures: it's sort of short-term
> XFAIL.  When a test starts to fail, it might be because someone
> uncovered a bug elsewhere, and that person might not be competent to
> address the real bug.  Yet, leaving the test as is, failing, is a
> problem for everybody else who might waste a lot of time to discover
> that they have not introduced the problem, it was already there.
> 
> So we make it TFAIL, which means "should be processed soon".

I'm not sure I understand the additional value of TFAIL.
You have to mark it anyway, so why not mark it XFAIL?

Put the other way round, what's the value of XFAIL if you
are effectively going to ignore the expected failures anyway?

Thanks,
Ralf