On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:47:45AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:59PM +0000, James Troup wrote: > > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> would pretty much ensure that the package never, ever builds. And > > > > > > Well, if it's always broken, we don't really want it, do we? > > > > If 'failing tests == broken' then we wouldn't have a working compiler > > for any architecture and/or for any release. I think there's a small > > flaw in your logic. > > So what are the tests useful for, then? They're obviously useless as a > gauge of quality, because failing tests apparently don't indicate a flaw in > the software.
A little common sense, please? The test results have to be interpreted by a human being. There are about twenty thousand tests and most architectures fail maybe a few dozen. -- Daniel Jacobowitz
