Sure, there have been occassions where on a particular architecture or there is a particular set of circumstances where a test will succeed on a particular system but will fail elsewhere.

If you try to bisect such a situation, you'll not be able to run git bisect run on your tests because of the failing test.

I'm not against a failing test being committed, but I believe it isn't hugely productive. The test failing is surely a signal only to the developer who wrote the test that it failed? Or perhaps it should be failed on a seperate branch and then merged to the master branch, which is pristine.

Every organisation has there own workflow, I suppose.

Edit: a crucial bit of info I didn't note was that you keep developing and add a lot more commits before it is noticed.