Bug #32733 | ndb_binlog_format.test fails randomly | ||
---|---|---|---|
Submitted: | 26 Nov 2007 18:50 | Modified: | 30 Nov 2007 19:48 |
Reporter: | Ingo Strüwing | Email Updates: | |
Status: | Closed | Impact on me: | |
Category: | Tests: Cluster | Severity: | S7 (Test Cases) |
Version: | 6.0.4 | OS: | Linux (Debian) |
Assigned to: | CPU Architecture: | Any | |
Tags: | pbfail |
[26 Nov 2007 18:50]
Ingo Strüwing
[28 Nov 2007 10:23]
Bugs System
Pushed into 6.0.4-alpha
[28 Nov 2007 13:49]
Ingo Strüwing
I don't think that this is fair. Investigation, if the bug is reported already, and filling the form takes some minutes already. Alone downloading of the archive would take much more than 5 minutes. Analyzing the problem in so far that one knows which files to add, producing a stack backtrace, and so on, belongs more to bug fixing than to bug reporting. You cannot publish a list of files to save for all kinds of bugs? If we want to put that burden on the bug reporter, those bugs won't be reported at all. One would just hope that it won't happen in the next run. I believe this is what most developers do anyway, as even a terse report like the above is sufficiently inconvenient to make. A different story is the fact that the archive has gone already (2.5 days after the push). This shows that the development resources in terms of disk space are much too small. (Didn't I mention that somewhere before?) I wanted to measure the time required to provide you with the requested information, but now I cannot do that. If the given information does not help, then this bug has escaped. The log file is still present, though the link is broken by BugDB. But it doesn't have more information than pasted above anyway. In my point of view, test suite failures have to be fixed with the topmost priority as they block other developers. But I agree that having less than 2 days, before the archive vanishes, is impossible. Regards Ingo