We decided we would do CI for this project, to monitor the health of the codebase on a regular basis. While I might agree that on the face of it, having one test fail might not be a showstopper, I think that the system only works if we stick to it. The current failure has been around for a while now, and it doesn't look like it will get much attention if it doesn't block the VOTE. We would then start the new cycle with at least one failing test. During that cycle more tests will fail, all being minor, all getting little to no attention etc. etc. You see where I'm going with this?
I'm sorry, but if we bother to test at all, we should embrace the entire workflow that comes with it, which means we fix regressions or at least have a LAZY consensus to exclude the failing tests, change the reference bitmap or something. Until then I think having a failing test - especially one that has been around since before the VOTE was called - is more than enough reason to block a release. EdB On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The mustella tests are not part of the source release so IMO it's actually > not hugely relevant unless it's a serious issue or causes a regression. > > If we fixed 50 bugs and add new functionally I'd say that outweighs a minor > focus issue or an issue with one of the 30,000+ tests and that should not be > a reason for voting -1. Especially if we try and release reasonably > frequently. > > The Focus Manager patch is likely to have caused that issue as you said, but > not sure about the drop and drag issue that's shown up at the same time - any > ideas re that? > > The issue we have now is that by having a -1 vote, other people are unlikely > to put the effort into testing RC1. I'd prefer if everyone tested RC1 and > found any issues it has rather than waiting until the next RC. > > Thanks, > Justin -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
