On 10/01/2011 19:48, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Éric Araujo<merwok at netwok.org> wrote: >>>> +1 to rename it “test needed” >>>> +1 to remove it >> I meant either one would be an improvement. > +1 to remove it > > Let's remove it first, an then decide if another stage is necessary. > The problems with "unit test needed" is that > > 1. It is not clear whether unit tests should be written before or > after a patch and thus once a bug is acknowledged as valid, what an > appropriate stage should be. > > 2. For a bug that needs confirmation as being reproducible, it > suggests that familiarity with unit test framework in necessary to > move the issue forward. In fact, in many cases a short stand-alone > script is more helpful than a Lib/test patch. > > I think "patch needed" is a good enough first stage. For bugs it > should be set when there is a rough consensus that the behavior is a > bug and for RFEs, it should be set when a decision to include cannot > be made without an implementation. Agree. "Patch needed" applies if the patch is incomplete, and if it lacks tests then it is incomplete. Michael > While there is no agreement on whether the bug is valid or whether an > RFE makes any sense, the stage can stay undefined. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
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