* Halil Pasic (pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote: > > > On 10/18/2016 03:54 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > >> > I think I understand the motivation. Does that mean > >> > you are not supposed to expose a bug via a test? I might > >> > be able to demonstrate that something is wrong but unable > >> > to fix the problem myself (time constraints). > >> > > >> > How was I supposed to do this? > > You might add a test but leave it commented out, or just post > > the test but not for merging so that it only gets merged > > after someone fixes the bug. > > > > Dave > > > > As stated by the accompanying message: > > "The idea is to remove .start support and this patch should > be reverted, as soon this happens, or even better just > dropped. If however dropping the support for .start encounters > resistance, this patch should prove useful in an unexpected > way." > > the patch is not intended for a merge. My preferred way of dealing > with this is to just pick (merge) the first and the last patch of the > series. The second patch is just to prove that we have a problem, > and it's effect is immediately reverted by the third patch as a > preparation for the forth one which removes the tested feature altogether. > > In my opinion the inclusion of a commented out test makes even less > sense if the tested feature is intended to be removed by the next > patch in the series. > > I think I was not clear enough when stating that this patch is > not intended for merging. Is there an established way to do > this?
I don't think there's any point in posting it like that as part of a patch series; posting it as a separate test that fails or something like that; but I don't think I've ever seen it done like that inside a patch series where you expect some of it to be picked up. Dave > > Cheers, > Halil > -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
