On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:41:35 -0400 > Steven Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't mean you, particularly. Until we have a framework better > > > than the one contributed 7 years ago for testing, it's all in flux, > > > and while I could elaborate suggestions for implementing a new one, > > > unless someone's actually promising to do it, there are more > > > pressing and useful things I could do *now* with the time. > > > > /me nods. I don't know where a good, solid win is there either, but > > if someone *does* know where we could make some solid improvements > > (i.e., stuff we could get done in the short term, not pie-in-the-sky > > stuff), I'd like to hear it. > > Well, you can still write your own tests, completely ignoring the > existing framework. I have a few volume-operation-related ones I've been > using recently. Getting them into a robust state takes time I haven't > spent yet, though; I don't consider them at the level of quality for > inclusion in the tree at this time. > > Sure, even sans-framework having tests is valuable, but until we have a framework, taking them now means more work later when we get something to fit them into.
