On Feb 13, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Ryosuke Niwa wrote: > 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. >
NOT_IMPLEMENTED, or something similar like FEATURE_MISSING, might be good. Cheers, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
