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

[Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev]

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.


On 28 September 2016 at 10:28, Renato Golin via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> We already have an unwritten rule to create PRs for XFAILs, and we
> normally don't XFAIL lightly (I don't, at least). But creating one PR
> for every existing XFAIL may end up as a long list of never looked
> PRs. :)

As opposed to the other ~9000 open PRs?  At least they would be tracked.
--paulr