Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 17:40, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niklas Therning ha scritto:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
So you prefer to not have bug-proving tests. I just understood this, but
this is simply a matter of preference, so rather than disappoint each other
we can discuss a common way to deal with this.
Most of them have opened threads/jiras waiting for more input, feel free
to add your knowledge to that threads so we can close them ASAP.
My preference is to have tests that pass in trunk. I'd rather have the
test cases that prove a bug in JIRA. Once a bug has been fixed the test case
will of course be added to trunk to prove that it has been fixed.
/Niklas
How do you (you all) suggest to deal with situation like the recent
MIME4J-59 that made 3 tests to fail?
1) Should we wait committing a fix for a critical bug until we are sure all
tests pass?
2) Should we commit them and leave the new test failing (to be solved ASAP
but not a requirement for the author of the first fix)
3) Should we remove the failing tests and open a JIRA issue with them?
My preference goes to #2.
-1 to 2).
For the record, if you missed it, #2 is exactly what Niklas and Robert
ended up doing (I was not involved there).
BTW the goal of this discussion is (well, it was a complaint, and I'm
trying to turn it into something positive) seeing if we can find
consensus on a modus operandi. So your preference between #1 and #3 is
important.
If we don't improve our workflow, similar threads are useless and only
increase my pessimism about JAMES.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
