Yes, and I'll probably do that. But in my experience, this has a very high
probability of burying the problem, i.e. the incentive for actually fixing
the problem is reduced dramatically.   It's better to do test-breaking
things on separate branches when possible.  IMO expected failures are for
when a feature is being designed and still incomplete, not when it was
already working.

João

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 16:18 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: João Távora <joaotavora@gmail.com>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:24:39 +0100
> > Cc: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>, Emacs developers <emacs-devel@gnu.org>,
> >       Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Yes.  But it is the master branch, where not everything can be expected
> > > to work all the time.  I think the main thing is, we're _going_ to fix
> > > this bug.
> >
> > Well, I respectfully and totally disagree.  The reason we have automated
> > tests in Hydra is to catch unintentional breakage, not intentional
> > breakage.  And, IIUC that test is the only one preventing a successful
> > "make check".
>
> Isn't there a way to mark a test as expected to fail?
>