> Suppose I'm fixing a bug in the library. I want peer review for my fix, > but I need none for my new "would have caught" test cases. Is it > considered alright to check-in right away the test case, breaking the test > suite, and to upload a patch to SF to fix it? Or should the patch include > the new test cases? > > The XP answer would be "hey, you have to checkin the breaking test case > right away", and I'm inclined to agree. > > I really want to break the standard library, just because I'm a sadist -- > but seriously, we need tests that break more often, so bugs will be easier > to fix. In theory I'm with you. In practice, each time the test suite breaks, we get worried mail from people who aren't following the list closely, did a checkout, and suddenly find that the test suite breaks. That just adds noise to the list. So I'm against it. -1 --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.pythonlabs.com/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4