On 01/10/2011 12:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Hello,
I would like to advocate again for the removal of the "unit test
needed" stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
contributors and bug reporters.
This keeps
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 22:37, wrote:
>
>Antoine> Then we would need a whole array of checkboxes for things
>Antoine> missing in a patch:
>Antoine> - missing unit test
>Antoine> - missing documentation changes
>Antoine> - other things?
>
> How about replacing all the possibili
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:37 AM, wrote:
> How about replacing all the possibilities with
>
> patch incomplete
>
> then elaborate in the issue itself how that is the case.
+1
This is much clearer than lumping incomplete patches in with
nonexistent ones. A process that goes "needs patch->patch
Antoine> Then we would need a whole array of checkboxes for things
Antoine> missing in a patch:
Antoine> - missing unit test
Antoine> - missing documentation changes
Antoine> - other things?
How about replacing all the possibilities with
patch incomplete
then elaborate i
On 10/01/2011 19:48, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
+1 to rename it “test needed”
+1 to remove it
I meant either one would be an improvement.
+1 to remove it
Let's remove it first, an then decide if another stage is necessary.
The problems wit
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Éric Araujo wrote:
>>> +1 to rename it “test needed”
>>> +1 to remove it
>
> I meant either one would be an improvement.
+1 to remove it
Let's remove it first, an then decide if another stage is necessary.
The problems with "unit test needed" is that
1. It is no
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:11:23 +0200
Eli Bendersky wrote:
> > I would like to advocate again for the removal of the "unit test
> > needed" stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
> > into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
> > contributors and bug reporters.
Le 10/01/2011 20:11, Eli Bendersky a écrit :
> Perhaps a different wording would be preferred to removal. Suppose a
> reviewer accepts a patch but asks for a test before committing it.
Well, we usually forewarn that a patch should include tests and docs, so
I think “patch needed” or “patch review”
> I would like to advocate again for the removal of the "unit test
> needed" stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
> into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
> contributors and bug reporters.
>
>
Perhaps a different wording would be preferred to removal. Su
>> +1 to rename it “test needed”
>> +1 to remove it
I meant either one would be an improvement.
Regards
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/op
Am 10.01.2011 19:21, schrieb Éric Araujo:
>> I would like to advocate again for the removal of the "unit test
>> needed" stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
>> into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
>> contributors and bug reporters.
>
> Speaking as a
> I would like to advocate again for the removal of the "unit test
> needed" stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
> into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
> contributors and bug reporters.
Speaking as a bug triager:
+1 to rename it “test needed”
+1 to r
Hello,
I would like to advocate again for the removal of the "unit test
needed" stage on the tracker, which regularly confuses our triagers
into thinking it's an actual requirement or expectation from
contributors and bug reporters.
Regards
Antoine.
___
13 matches
Mail list logo
