I found, as you will recall, a certain number of surprises in the collections subset.
You might say that we collectively took out a loan at the credibility bank by incorporating this stuff, deprecations or no, and might be well-advised to try to find time to write tests and repair problems (or remove dubious stuff altogether). On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The math (Colt) stuff is a special case, and in fact, is one which will >> lull >> us >> into a sense of security by having warnings go away, because it's still way >> low on test coverage. But, we did go an run my nice "auto-deprecator" >> ruby script on it, so we at least still have those warnings... >> > > It isn't just lack of test cases leading to deprecations. I had a use just > now for some of the code and in the process of adding test cases to get rid > of the deprecations found it wasn't quite right. If dipping into 4 routines > uncovers 1 medium to minor bug, there must be quite a few more of those > lurking. > > >> *shrug* That code still has way more issues than just formatting, it's >> done in an entirely different style, was aimed at compiling against, like >> jdk1.2, and really needs some care and attention, and maybe possibly >> even some *use* at some point! >> > > Indeed. >
