Douglas Gregor writes:
On Thursday 12 February 2004 07:38 am, Martin Wille wrote:
I often had failures due to problems with my local setup. Emails about failed tests should not be sent without being checked by a human before. (Which main- tainer would want to be notified about my disk-full errors?)
Do these failures typically result in a huge number of problems? Perhaps a simple threshold, such as "if there are more than X new failures, e-mail the maintainer of the tests; otherwise, email the people that checked in code last".
That might be a good heuristic, although, depending on X, it will either give us some number of false positives (i.e. regression runners will get notified about "real" failures caused by someone's errorneous checkin) or false negatives (number of people will get notified about failures actually caused by a test site problem). False positives would be probably preferable. In any case, this definitely can be a workable solution. -- Aleksey Gurtovoy MetaCommunications Engineering