"Ronald S. Bultje" <[email protected]> writes: > Hi, > > 2012/1/8 Måns Rullgård <[email protected]>: >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: >>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:47:13AM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: >>>> > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:56:36AM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >>>> >> On 13/12/11 00:52, Måns Rullgård wrote: >>>> >> >Luca Barbato<[email protected]> writes: >>>> >> >>On 13/12/11 00:32, Diego Biurrun wrote: >>>> >> >>>--- >>>> >> >>> Makefile | 4 +++- >>>> >> >>> doc/developer.texi | 4 +--- >>>> >> >>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >>Seems ok. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >But oh so pointless. >>>> >> >>>> >> Shall we drop it then? >>>> > >>>> > No. It's a convenient shorthand that will reduce the number of >>>> > mistakes in the long run if all developers pick up the habit. >>>> >>>> People fail to do even the most elementary checking today. This will >>>> never change. >>> >>> Flaming aside :) >>> >>> This issue has come up again with the breakage of the h264-test program. >>> This just adds one line and can save us from such troubles. >> >> Believe me, it will not help with anything whatsoever. Why would >> renaming the test cause people to suddenly start running it? > > I agree with this; a bunch of test programs are useless if they're not > run. If they are not tests, but examples, they should be renamed as > such. > > Which are they? Examples or tests? If they are tests, what is the > expected outcome, what do they test, why aren't they in fate already?
The ones that actually do something verifiably right or wrong are already in fate. A few more can probably be massaged into actually testing something too. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
