Re: [Twisted-Python] Test coverage requirements

2017-02-27 Thread Glyph Lefkowitz
> On Feb 27, 2017, at 3:33 PM, Jean-Paul Calderone > wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Tristan Seligmann > wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 at 21:54 Glyph Lefkowitz > wrote: > That said, it has been improving and if it keep

Re: [Twisted-Python] Test coverage requirements

2017-02-27 Thread Jean-Paul Calderone
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 at 21:54 Glyph Lefkowitz > wrote: > >> That said, it has been *improving* and if it keeps improving at the rate >> it has been, I expect that we'd be able to put that coverage blocker back >> in in another 3-4 months

Re: [Twisted-Python] Test coverage requirements

2017-02-27 Thread Tristan Seligmann
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 at 21:54 Glyph Lefkowitz wrote: > That said, it has been *improving* and if it keeps improving at the rate > it has been, I expect that we'd be able to put that coverage blocker back > in in another 3-4 months. Perhaps something to talk about at PyCon. > I think at least one

Re: [Twisted-Python] Test coverage requirements

2017-02-27 Thread Glyph Lefkowitz
> On Feb 26, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Jean-Paul Calderone > wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm looking at some recent > trunk > commits >

Re: [Twisted-Python] Test coverage requirements

2017-02-27 Thread Adi Roiban
On 26 February 2017 at 23:51, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking at some recent trunk commits (also, others) that seem to have > non-trivial untested code at at ReviewProcess. I can't tell if the codecov > reports are wrong or if the development process documentation is wrong or if

Re: [Twisted-Python] Test coverage requirements

2017-02-26 Thread ex vito
On 2017-02-26, at 23:51, Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > I'm looking at some recent trunk commits (also, others) that seem to have > non-trivial untested code at at ReviewProcess. I can't tell if the codecov > reports are wrong or if the development process documentation is wrong or if > the co