[llvm-dev] [RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests

[Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev]

On 28 September 2016 at 19:58, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 28 September 2016 at 10:08, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> I cannot think of any situation where a universally failing test
>> should be in-tree unless it is a bug that someone is expecting to fix.
>
> It seems moderately common to mark something XFAIL temporarily to get
> the bots green while then going ahead to fix the issue.  Your proposal
> would add extra overhead to that flow by requiring a PR as well.  This
> has value when it turns out that fix can't happen in the short term for
> any reason.  I don't have a feel for how common that is, although I'm
> sure it does happen.
> I think the overhead is worth the added value, but then I'm a process
> kind of guy.

I'm not saying I _like_ this solution, but if that were an issue we
could always have an open issue e.g. "PRNNNN: Some tests are marked
XFAIL but only have this generic PR listed as the reason", for use in
these "quick fix" cases. It would also be easy to track if these
"quick fixes" didn't happen shortly.

Alex