Stéfan van der Walt wrote: > 2009/1/9 David Cournapeau <[email protected]>: > >> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I do not expect the trunk to always work. I even expect it to have >>> bugs. However, I do not expect there to be test failures for known >>> reasons that result in wasSuccessful() returning false. This is a bad >>> programming practice. It creates work for people trying to figure out >>> what is wrong when the answer is already know. >>> >> Well, I don't agree it is bad practice: it is not ideal, yes, but I >> don't think using KnownFailure is much better. My rationale being that >> known failures are almost never worked on because it does not bug >> anyone anymore, and it is very easy to forget about them - AFAICS, >> most numpy/scipy known failures have never been worked on after being >> tagged as such. I don't think we have a good system for those cases, >> be it known failure - or just failing. >> > > I agree with you point of view, but I also have sympathy for > Cristopher's situation.
Yes, it is not a black and white situation - I first misunderstood Christopher situation because of the given context of tracking numpy changes. I can see why it is annoying - but it gives me important information (like for example the fact that solaris does not have the same formatting issues than linux and mac os X thanks to recent bug reports). As Robert said, BTS is supposedly a better system for this for this kind of things - but at least for me, trac is so slow and painful to use that I try to avoid it as much as possible. David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
