On Jun 16, 8:45 am, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I much prefer to work on projects where the tests always pass. If you > break that, you are responsible for seeing to it that it gets fixed.
How about a "tests-todo" or a "tests-unimplemented" directory? Given that the Spec is (still) evolving, it's important to know that checkins don't break existing tests, but *also* important to know what features of the Spec are not yet implemented (or are implemented incorrectly). Ideally, that means checking in code+tests. But, in a pinch, checking in something to "tests-todo" is better than nothing. Since these tests are used by both the Python and Ruby implementations, it's probably inevitable that implementation will lag on one side or the other. So, if we did go with "tests-todo", when would a test move from there into the testdata directory? When one implementation passes? Both? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "html5lib-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to html5lib-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/html5lib-discuss?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
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