On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 07:44:28PM +0300, Moshe Zadka wrote: > 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? If you're fixing a bug, then check in *both* pieces and call explicitly for a peer reviewer (plus the people watching -checkins). If you don't quite fix the bug, then a second checkin can smooth things out. Let's not get too caught up in "process", to the exclusion of being productive about bug fixing. > 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. I really want to see less process and discussion, and more code. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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