Charles R Harris charlesr.harris at gmail.com writes:
After 6 days of trudging through the numpy issues and
finally passing the half way point, I'm wondering if we
can set up so that new defects get a small test that can
be parsed out and run periodically to mark issues that might
be fixed. I
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
Charles R Harris charlesr.harris at gmail.com writes:
After 6 days of trudging through the numpy issues and
finally passing the half way point, I'm wondering if we
can set up so that new defects get a small test that can
be
Robert Kern robert.kern at gmail.com writes:
[clip]
Seems like more trouble than it's worth to automate. We don't want
just anyone with a Github account to add arbitrary code to our test
suites, do we? The idea of an expected failure test suite is a good
one, but it seems to me that it could
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Pauli Virtanen p...@iki.fi wrote:
Robert Kern robert.kern at gmail.com writes:
[clip]
Seems like more trouble than it's worth to automate. We don't want
just anyone with a Github account to add arbitrary code to our test
suites, do we? The idea of an expected
After 6 days of trudging through the numpy issues and finally passing the
half way point, I'm wondering if we can set up so that new defects get a
small test that can be parsed out and run periodically to mark issues that
might be fixed. I expect it can be done, but might be more trouble than it
