On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Stephen White <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:16 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I don't know about other organizations, but from Apple's point of view, >> it's rare that we'd want to publicly promise that we'll never implement >> something. We'd just want to document that we haven't implemented the >> feature yet, and thus some tests are inapplicable. So NEVERFIX would be >> something we'd be even more reluctant to apply. We would not even want to >> mark the difference between "we haven't enabled this feature yet, but >> probably will very soon" and "we have no plans to ever implement the >> feature unless something changes", as that would be communicating >> information about future releases. >> >> I don't know of the intent of SKIP, but maybe it is ok for this purpose. >> I would expect it to be used for tests that are temporarily skipped due to >> bugs, based on the name, which seems different to me from "this >> functionality is not implemented in this port, rendering the test >> inapplicable". >> > > How about NOTIMPL? > Let's not use an arbitrary abbreviation like IMPL. I would strictly prefer NOTIMPLEMENTED or NOT_IMPLEMENTED or NotImplemented over NOTIMPL, NOT_IMPL, or NotImpl. - Ryosuke
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
