--- robert burrell donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 16:43 -0700, Brian Stansberry
> wrote:
> > --- robert burrell donkin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > i'm wondering whether to commit them onto a
> branch
> > > so that everyone can
> > > take a look, check their accuracy and take a
> look at
> > > fixes. opinions?
> >
> > Please forgive if this is a stupid question, but
> why
> > on a branch?
>
> to prevent a gump storm :)
>
> gump builds from TRUNK. committing unit tests that
> failure onto TRUNK
> means that gump will fail to build JCL. last time
> that happened, there
> were literally hundreds of dependent products that
> could not be built.
> each failed project means an email every day until
> it's fixed. thus, a
> gump storm.
>
Wow. That's a shame. I'd think not being able to add
unit tests that fail to the main line would tend to
lead to a lot fewer unit tests.
BTW, a couple weeks back I added a unit test patch to
the JBoss Memory Leak bug. The added test will fail,
so the patch shouldn't be committed to trunk. (Thus
confirming my point above).
Brian
> - robert
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
