RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 13 17:36:54 CEST 2011 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110674.html

On 4/13/2011 7:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
> Stefan Behnel<stefan_ml at behnel.de>  wrote:

>> I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch
>> the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from
>> integration, but needs solid reasoning, review and testing in the wild in
>> order to be considered an equivalent alternative implementation.
>> But then
>> again, this should actually be required anyway, even for code with an
>> exceedingly high test coverage.
>
> I'm not sure what kind of "testing in the wild" you refer to. If you
> mean that it should have e.g. been published on the Cheeseshop, I don't
> think that's an useful requirement for an accelerator module.

The real testing in the wild will come after the accelerator is 
released. Is there any easy way for users to avoid the accelerator, to 
see if it is the source of a problem, short of editing the import in the 
.py file? Test/support appears to jump through some hoops to do so.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110674.html below:

Update PEP 399 to include comments from python-dev.