On (10/08/15 09:20), Pavel Reichl wrote:
On 08/10/2015 06:48 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>On (07/08/15 15:02), Pavel Reichl wrote:
>>
>>On 08/07/2015 02:43 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>ehlo,
>>>
>>>there was a warning/error
>>>src/tests/krb5_utils-tests.c: In function ‘test_sss_krb5_realm_has_proxy’:
>>>src/tests/krb5_utils-tests.c:690:10: error: unused variable ‘perr’
[-Werror=unused-variable]
>>> long perr;
>>> ^
>>>src/tests/krb5_utils-tests.c:689:21: error: unused variable ‘kerr’
[-Werror=unused-variable]
>>> krb5_error_code kerr;
>>> ^
>>>cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>>>
>>>LS
>>>
>>ACK,
>Thank you for review.
>It would be better if you could let review of easy patches
>for new developers.
>
>>ci passed (as we define it these days)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> These words are not appropriate.
>We are all responsible for the current state.
>1. we can catch problematic tests during review [1]
>2. we can send patches for existing issues [2]
>3. we can help other developers to fix problematic test
> (pcech is working on problematic test more than 3 days)
>
>I would like to encourage you to be proactive. We have many tickets
>in "SSSD Continuous integration" bucket[3]
>It's much better strategy than complaints to the curent state of CI.
Lukas, I was not complaining.
But it sounded like that.
I just didn't list the failed tests as it's
currently know problem in CI and it's generally known fact to other readers
of sssd-devel.
It doues not change the fact that WE can improve it.
WE (includes you as well)
@see three points above
LS