<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28.02.2013 09:48, William Reade wrote: > On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 17:26 +1300, Tim Penhey wrote: >> Can anyone help with these? >> >> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1134959">https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1134959</a> >> >> I'm getting them failing most of the time, and I have no idea why. > > It's r943, I'm afraid; it seems that dimiter did not run the full test I'm really sorry to cause this. After the revert I'll take my recent changes and make sure each one passes go test ./... in juju-core/ and repropose them. While investigating, I run into 2 intermittent failures and filed bugs for them: Bug #1135452: rpc: intermittent test failure <juju-core:New> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://launchpad.net/bugs/1135452">< https://launchpad.net/bugs/1135452></a> Bug #1135444: state/watcher intermittent test failure <juju-core:New> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://launchpad.net/bugs/1135444">< https://launchpad.net/bugs/1135444></a> > > suite before submitting. However, we're now up to r947, and 3 more > people (ian, tim, gustavo) have apparently been blithely checking in > further code without running the full test suite. > > This is probably my fault for not making my expectations clear, so let's > be explicit about this: > > 1) Do *not* merge into trunk without a full passing test suite. > Frankly, you shouldn't even lbox propose without the justified > belief that you haven't broken anything, and the only way to get > that is to RUN THE TESTS. > > 2) If trunk is broken, the first person to discover it is responsible > for reverting it to the latest non-broken revision *before* doing > any further work; coordinate in IRC so only one person does it, > mail juju-dev to ensure that the perpetrator sees what's happened, > and then carry on from the non-broken state. > > On the other hand, I'm disappointed that I need to say this. You've all > worked with other developers before, so you should know that by not > taking the 10 minutes to run the tests, you're imposing a cost of at > *least* 10 minutes on *everyone* else who gets your potentially-broken > code and needs to figure out what happened; this is inefficient, and > more than a little rude, so please don't do it any more. > > I'm reverting to r942 as we speak, and dimiter's looking into the > original problems. Tim/ian/gustavo, it's your responsibility to get your > work landed again: feel free to do this without further supervision, so > long as: > > 1) Your original diff, as reviewed and accepted, applies cleanly. > > 2) The full test suite passes on your machine. > > Does anyone have anything to add here? > > Cheers > William > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.enigmail.net/">http://www.enigmail.net/</a> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRLyBtAAoJENzxV2TbLzHw+oEIAKL5t1lA+c/C8+f2EC7tFE9g rh9y227Pr3WBVCv9B/0lKsPBV9ULg1ysNVeXCFuAMLweo5zikONTr4KvNoLsbjar RTHMefwms5zQGXeCaO0WdMwMHEVx3UCiKNsz5YmYyhlflet8WV3lx1iMhfnjFyNz ewqMJhF7O22jqq7jnbG6GP5b/2Z8OlT6mRVHbm20gh64diJNYKEw3II9HaMjjcPY 70aA2st5LJwpr6esxOHr0/huZ3iUS8YDg/ksWvd61ppahUu8OptW87RKjVia30rx Yr5RMQ+Nw9LOTA1ZfHQS6cg8igtHcSLFaiQARjj3Z1/WAHtp1v43KxPf43Pd6vA= =5uJ7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- </body> </html>