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.