From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6533361FAE for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:36:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 55DBA1A225 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:35:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D9A851A21B for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:35:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A3F3244C22 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:35:44 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20200915102054.2866527-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20200915102054.2866527-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <f14f54c7-1eee-9094-688f-15dcee7880a5@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:35:42 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/81.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200915102054.2866527-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.201 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC proxmox 1/5] time: add test for leap second parsing/converting X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 11:36:15 -0000 On 9/15/20 12:20 PM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> > --- > > Notes: > test fails, fixed by next patch > off-topic, you and Dominik use this pattern to introduce test failure before fixing it quite a bit, and I dislike it quite a bit. Either just do the fix and the test in one patch, or re-order this so that the fix comes first, then the previously failing test if you really think it is semantically separate and needs to be a separate test... We're all developers with at least a basic git experience, if one wants to still check the prev. failure of the test anybody should be able to do that. I do not want the build to fail at any commit.