Am Dienstag, 28. Dezember 2004 17:40 schrieb Archie Cobbs: > Jeroen Frijters wrote: > >>The problem with that approach is that if someone adds a new test > >>to Mauve, it doesn't automatically get added to our "white list". > > > > That's a feature, not a bug! In practice new tests often get > > added that don't yet run without failures (and this is the right > > thing to do). So I strongly believe we should work with a white > > list. > > Huh? Why is adding broken tests the right thing to do? And besides, > if a broken test is added, this way there will be motivation to > resolve the discrepancy. With a whitelist, a broken test can get > added but no one will notice and then it just sits there getting > stale.
Its common practise to add new code to one implementation, e.g GNU classpath or libgcj, and test it for a while and later merge it to kaffe. According to you the mauve tests don't need to be added before it's included in all implementations because nothing may be broken. Michael -- Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/ _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
