Hi! > could you elaborate on this part? where were we a year ago?
We had many failing tests that now XFAILs classified as regular FAILs. > yeah, but as we did see, the current approach makes it very easy to > "hide" even the not so small issues (for example the bunch of date > related XFAILS which you personally asked multiple times to be fixed > before the 5.4 release). And did that happen while they were FAILs? No, it did not. These fails were still ignored. > I think that in it's current form XFAIL hurts more than it helps. Hurts what? What is worse than before? Every problem you describe we had before, and on top of that we have ones that we don't have now. > I think that eliminating the failing tests and making the fails noisy > would be a better approach. Better in which regard? We know for a fact that having test fails does not lead to people promptly fixing it. We just have 50 test failures for a year, and people stop regarding 50 test failures as something exceptional - we always had tons of test fails, who cares if there's one or two or ten more? So if you propose going back to what we already had a year ago, you still have to explain how situation would be better than it was a year ago - what exactly changed? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
