"Nicolas M. Thiery" <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:44:36AM +0200, Martin Rubey wrote: >> I am not completely sure I see your point: do you mean, that it is often >> the case that a doctest fails because of a *different* patch? And once >> that one is fixed, the patch owner would modify his own? > > My typical use case: I work on a low level feature in file A, like > improving category stuff. Along the way, my change triggers some > failure in some doctests in some other not directly related file B: > typically some output was changed syntactically though it is > semantically equivalent, and things might evolve further; or maybe I > am not sure yet whether the change is desirable or not. In doubt, I > prefer not to touch file B at this point in time, to avoid creating > conflicts with other patches lower in the queue.
It appears to me that this is completely compatible with the proposal of "expected failure". Of course you wouldn't modify any doctests in this case either. I guess it's still better to let this idea rest in peace now... (the things re plethysm in several alphabets are really more pressing) All the best, Martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-combinat-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-combinat-devel?hl=en.
