On Feb 1, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Mark Womack wrote:
Well, it is a good nit. This particular test doesn't always fail though. Locally on my machine it failed once, and after looking at the code, I ran it again and it worked. My guess is that it has something to do with the copying of the config file not changing the date so that the watchdog triggers or conceiveably a bug in the FileWatchdog code someplace. There is something similar that I have mentioned related to the TimeBasedRolling scheme as well, though it does not seem to show up in the Gump radar. I get it fairly often locally. -Mark
Gump is not consistently failing, but it isn't a desirable practice to be issuing releases while Gump is failing or immediately after Gump starts passing. The test was recently added at which time they would pass on Windows but fail on most Unix platforms. I modified them to get them to pass consistently on my boxes and apparently pass inconsistently on Gump. I do not think it reflects a regression in the code base, but either the fragility of the test or a bug that has been latent in the code for some time.
Omitting the test would not change the distribution since the unit tests are not included. It would only silence Gump from reminding us that we have either a fragile test or a latent bug. I think releasing an alpha under these conditions, while undesirable, is acceptable.
