On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 12:54:55PM -0500, Guido van Rossum 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? > > > > 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. Tell those people to chill out for a few days and not be so jumpy. You're talking about behavior that can easily be remedied. It is a simple statement about the CVS repository: "CVS builds but may not pass the test suite in certain cases" rather than "CVS is perfect" 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