On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:51 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: >> Why was this test disabled, rather than fixed? That seems a rather >> poor solution to the problem of it taking longer than desired to run. > > I disabled it because I didn't know how to fix it, and created bug > reports 2968 and 2969 in return. So you did. I didn't notice them, sorry. > It is policy that tests that break > get disabled, rather than keeping them broken.
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