On Tuesday 28 December 2004 18:28, Michael Koch wrote: > > 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.
Ehm; just being a bystander; a broken test in Archies email is a test that does not work properly (harness.check(1 ==2)). A broken test we are talking about, and what Michael seems to imply; is a test that is fully correct, and will (probably) run correctly on Suns JVM, but fails on another. Lets call the former a broken, and the latter a failing test, please :) Mauve is not suppost to hold _any_ broken tests, right? -- Thomas Zander
pgplrZQjPtfoF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
