<enebo[m]>
yeah there had been a few PRs which ended up getting tagged normally
<headius>
oh, actually this one is passing... not sure how it got marked as WIP
<headius>
but the question stands
<enebo[m]>
I think personally it depends on how important it is as a failure but if it is important it probably should be considered for 9.3
<headius>
so case by case
<enebo[m]>
we could be more dogmatic about this but we should just evaluate it. It would be nice to realize it is 2.6 in case it should be fixed on jruby-9.3
<enebo[m]>
but since we know we have those cases we should just verify it is really 2.7+ perhaps
<enebo[m]>
I do quite a few fixes where I extract the test to a script so in those cases I think it is easy to check
<headius>
ok
<enebo[m]>
but I think we both can somewhat see that it is a new option or something like that
<headius>
ok I'm skipping this argf thing
<headius>
it only fails in a full run and I can't figure out what triggers it
<headius>
there's a lot of default_internal/external juggling in these specs so who knows
<headius>
moving it to fails and we can try to do an argf pass some time
<enebo[m]>
argf is not a huge thing for JRuby
<enebo[m]>
and we obviously pass most basic behavior
<headius>
you mean people aren't using us for heavy command-line processing of files?!
Petruchio has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]