Reuben Thomas writes:
> On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
>
> > It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so
> that
> > they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for
> example, an
> > extra driver that
On 20 May 2016 at 15:58, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
> >> It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so that
> >> they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for example, an
> >> extra
On 19 May 2016 at 00:04, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
>> It is often easier to write expected-to-fail tests this way (so that
>> they can all look the same), rather than have to have, for example, an
>> extra driver that converts expected errors into success codes for the
>> automake test