Re: [PATCH] iotests: Do not run the iotests during "make check" anymore

[Max Reitz]

On 03.10.19 01:51, John Snow wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/2/19 11:50 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 02.10.19 17:10, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2019 17.03, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 04:21:46PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>>> Running the iotests during "make check" is causing more headaches than
>>>>> benefits for the block layer maintainers, so let's disable the iotests
>>>>> during "make check" again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  tests/Makefile.include   | 2 +-
>>>>>  tests/qemu-iotests/group | 2 +-
>>>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any objection to removing from 'make check', but I feel
>>>> like this commit should be modifying the travis.yml config so that
>>>> it explicitly runs the block tests, otherwise we're loosing automated
>>>> CI and the block tests will increase their rate of bitrot again.
>>>
>>> I was planning to send a separate patch for that (once my Travis builds
>>> are through...), but if it is preferred, I can also send a v2 of this
>>> patch here where I include that change.
>>>
>>> Max, any preferences?
>>
>> I don’t mind either way.  I don’t think we’re in danger of you
>> forgetting to send the Travis patch.
>>
>> As for running the tests on macOS: Good question.  I’d just let them run
>> now and maybe see later whether that decision hurts.  macOS has its own
>> filesystem, so it may be worth testing there.
>>
>> Max
>>
> 
> There are absolutely known bugs and problems using APFS that we have not
> fixed.

Sorry, somehow missed your reply. :-/

Yes, that was the idea why I said that maybe running the tests there
would be worth it, because it’s a different FS that produces, well,
interesting results.

But on second thought, who’s going to address those problems?  So, yeah,
that wouldn’t really help.

Max

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature