> Indeed, and they are run with 'make bugs'. We used to run them when > make test (or equivalently make check) was run, but people seemed to > get confused by that, so we removed them from the default check. > It'd be helpful to be able to see which ones are still failing, so we > could know when the bugs are fixed. Or on which platforms a given > bug is present.
Hm. The way that this is done with typical test software is to mark individual tests, or groups of tests as "known to fail", and then the test software doesn't raise an alarm if a test which is so flagged fails, but it does raise a nice signal saying "Hey, unexpected success!" when it succeeds. Such software also typically produces a nice summary showing how many tests of failed, passed, or unexpectedly passed on what platforms, and so forth. So, this is one of the features that using test software would give us. I use Python-oriented test software in my other projects, and while it could be pressed into service for this purpose, I suspect that there may be Haskell-oriented or bash-oriented test software that would serve better. Regards, Zooko --- http://allmydata.org -- Tahoe, the Least-Authority Filesystem http://allmydata.com -- back up all your files for $5/month _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
