Hello, Anton, On 4/17/06, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, we don't need all those branches. Only the branch for Harmony. > Only for those cases when we DO know that we have a deviation. > IMHO, I prefer to have all tests passing on RI (which verify tests > itself) and on Harmony (which verifies Harmony).
But there ARE some different behaviours between Harmony and RI. How could our test case show or these differences if all are passed both on RI and Harmony? I think our test cases should show these differences instead of hiding them. Failures should > indicate something wrong with tests or with Harmony code. There should > be no other failures, I think. Yes. So I think all test cases could pass on Harmony, but on RI :-) Failures on RI mean RI has different understanding or behaviours compared to Harmony criteria, or in other words, they're wrong behaviour according to Harmony criteria. That is a bit similar to 'exclude list' we introduced: we don't want to have failures when they are expected and predictable. -- Anton Avtamonov, Intel Middleware Products Division --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
