Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:34:37 -0800, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
See above. Once the bug is reported there is no justification to keep
the test around. In this case I prefer a skip over a removal because
the test apparently once was useful.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:34:37 -0800, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
See above. Once the bug is reported there is no justification to keep
the test around. In this case I prefer a skip over a removal because
the test apparently once was useful.
Bt skipped tests don't get
On Dec 16, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:34:37 -0800, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
See above. Once the bug is reported there is no justification to
keep
the test around.
The test becomes a regression test.
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:32 -0800, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
We would seem to be agreeing. If the goal of the test suite is not to
protect
against spoofing, and if it doesn't accomplish that anyway, why put a
signature check in there?
On Saturday 15 December 2007 01:34:37 Michael G Schwern wrote:
Bt skipped tests don't get run so it's effectively deleted, except a
permanently skipped test sits around cluttering things up. Smells like
commenting out code that maybe someday you might want to use again in the
future.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:32 -0800, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Asking the wrong question. None of our testsuites is there to protect
against spoof or attacks. That's simply not the goal. Same thing for
00-signature.t
We would seem to be agreeing. If the goal of the
* chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-15 19:10]:
thus every tarball of every distribution should contain
everything necessary to take over maintainership of a module.
It is a reasonable position, really, so long as you don’t stretch
it to absurd lengths. If there is something *unusual*
Adrian Howard wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007, at 05:12, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Adam Kennedy posed me a stumper on #toolchain tonight. In short,
having a
test which checks your signature doesn't appear to be an actual
deterrent to
tampering. The man-in-the-middle can just delete the test, or
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:12:51 -0800, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Adam Kennedy posed me a stumper on #toolchain tonight. In short, having a
test which checks your signature doesn't appear to be an actual deterrent
to
tampering. The
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:12:51 -0800, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Adam Kennedy posed me a stumper on #toolchain tonight. In short, having a
test which checks your signature doesn't appear to be an actual deterrent to
tampering. The man-in-the-middle can just delete the
On 11 Dec 2007, at 05:12, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Adam Kennedy posed me a stumper on #toolchain tonight. In short,
having a
test which checks your signature doesn't appear to be an actual
deterrent to
tampering. The man-in-the-middle can just delete the test, or just
the
SIGNATURE
11 matches
Mail list logo
