Code review comment for lp:~mbp/bzr/test-errors

On 14 June 2011 08:08, John Arbash Meinel <email address hidden> wrote:
>> * Bugs in old subunits do not deserve a 'known failure' in bzr.  Only
>>   things we could fix (without time travel) should get that.
>
> "We know this fails under these conditions", that seems like known
> failure to me. However, I guess it could just be skipped.

The distinction is supposed to be (in my mind, and I think in the
docs) that xfail is things that we should eventually come back and fix
in bzr; they should generally have a bug number. Skip is just things
that don't make sense to ever be tested. There are probably some that
are misclassified.

If there was a bug in a dependency, it would be reasonable to mark
that xfail until it's fixed. Once it is fixed, we might as well just
skip the test on old versions of that library, unless we choose to
also add a workaround in bzr itself. It is no longer a bug we need to
fix.

Thanks