ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Sergio Schvezov <sergio.schvezov@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday, June 28, 2014, Leo Arias <leo.arias@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jamie Strandboge <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>
>> In other words, while I agree that disabling a test is not the first
choice and
>> almost never the correct permanent choice, a carefully thought out
decision may
>> show it to be the right temporary choice. Disabling this test allows us
to push
>> a package that suffers from the same sqlite3 regression as what is
currently in
>> the archive, yet it fixes an issue that is potentially blocking image
promotion.
>
> I get that. You have two bugs, and you can't fix them both at the same
time. You will have to ignore one. In my opinion, a saner process would be
to fix the one that already has a test. Then write a test for the other
one, and then fix it.
> Of course, not everybody will agree to this in all the cases, but we need
a good reason to go the other way.

Doesn't that depend on the importance of the bug?

>
>>
>> To make sure this is not lost, I have filed a bug:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sqlite3/+bug/1335281
>>
>> I created two tasks: one for sqlite3 (and assigned to doko per Steve's
guidance
>> in this thread) and one for mediascanner2 to reenable the test (and
assigned to
>> Jussi). I added the 'rtm14' tag.
>
> Thanks. I've made a list of bugs that need to be checked regularly, here:
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/removed-tests-u
>
> Feel free to contribute to the definition of the process on the
whiteboard.
>
> pura vida
>