On 12/04/2009 05:38 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> Guenter Knauf wrote: >>> Hi, >>> William A. Rowe Jr. schrieb: >>>> I see good responses to the list from Branko, Joe and Jeff (and thanks >>>> for the bugfix Branko), so I'll proceed with this tonight, we'll have >>>> the usual 72hr vote, and then let's start this discussion over about >>>> the much larger changes in apr-util 1.4 ;) >>> I think we should take a look into the apr/apu tests first; Ruediger >>> mentioned this a while ago that we only report failures, but dont bail >>> out but instead try to use NULL pointers where we expect to have valid >>> pointers ...; therefore failing tests produce segfaults on some >>> platforms ... >> I don't see that as a showstopper to a major/minor bump; these are always >> bug fixes that can be addressed. >> >> What would be nice is if we could modify the test framework itself, perhaps >> fatal v.s. fail&continue flavors of all tests, to encourage the appropriate >> and proper logic in all test cases. > > Raises the question; are the contents of test/ subject to ABI, or only the > prototypes of include/* (nonrecursive)? >
IMHO only include/* as I assume that no developer uses test/ in its own projects. IMHO test/ is only for internal APR / APR-UTIL purposes. Regards Rüdiger
