On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:46:52AM -0600, John E. Malmberg wrote: > An additional note, this patch may cause some tests in vmsfspec.t to > fail. That is because the old behavior of pathfiy_dirspec() was > inconsistent with vmsify().
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 10:15:39AM -0600, John E. Malmberg wrote: > This is all needed for me to proceed with the testing of VMS perl in a > UNIX compatible mode. Currently most of the tests are passing. My view (and on matters VMS specific I'm going to defer to Craig, if he differs) is that if a needed change temporarily makes a known subset of tests fail, then it should include a patch to make exactly those tests TODO tests. Else, whoever wants to apply it, or look at the code afterwards, has no idea whether the tests they see failing are "expected" or "unexpected". If they don't know that tests are expected to fail, they waste time reporting things that are actually known to be that way (temporarily) And if they do know that tests are expected to fail, then they don't report failures even if they are in unrelated areas. Hence why I'd much prefer the list of "these are expected to fail", and that list to be supplied in code form. Nicholas Clark
