From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Broken tests Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:42:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20170213184211.GB3976@jasmine> References: <878tpab033.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52550) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdLZp-0003AI-Gz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:42:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cdLZl-0002Yx-IC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:42:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878tpab033.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel , Federico Beffa On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 04:08:00PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > In general, I think we can agree on reverting changes that break the > tests until a solution is proposed (and once the original author has > been notified, of course). That sounds like reasonable policy to me. > > Thoughts? I agree.