On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:40:33PM +0200, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > > We don't have a tradition of accepting tests that fail, but it might be a > > good idea to consider accepting such tests into unstable, and maybe even > > into the stable repository, if the test reveals a regression that we > > *really* want fixed in a timely manner. Although it is sort of scary > > having any repository that doesn't pass its own tests... > > For the moment, I don't accept these in the repo (although I do welcome > them and mention them in my Waiting for Code summaries). > > My thinking is that [i] the pref that forces a test when you record is > probably a good thing (you can also use --no-test) [ii] if we want to > have that test, we must make sure our own tests pass so that people > submitting patches know for sure if test failing is their doing or not. > I basically don't want to scare anybody off from submitting a patch > because 'Looks like a bad patch to me!'
Yeah, that makes sense. But if we didn't have your Waiting for Code summaries, it'd be worth considering. -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
