Hash: SHA1

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:

>> Please don't deliberately check in failing tests on the trunk.  If you
>> need to do this, make a branch, and ask on the mailing list for people
>> to investigate your branch.
> Why not? Trunk is (well, was) broken. This makes it clear. The 
> regression actually happened ages ago, but no-one had written a decent 
> test for the original functionality, so the regression was only 
> discovered in application software. This test corrects that omission, 
> and helped a few people co-ordinate addressing the issue.
> Why benefit do we get from not making the breakage explicit to everyone?

Two things:

- - Most importantly, we have a firm policy that the test should always be
  "clean" (passing all tests).   This means that I don't have to fix
  the test J. Random Hacker checked in broken before doing work on an
  unrelated bit of code:  I can run the tests before my change, apply
  and run them afterward, verifying that I didn't break anythin.

- - You'll note that "broken" is a matter of opinion here.  David actually
  checked in an update (before my message, but I hadn't read it yet)
  which indicates that.

So, if you think the behavior of the trunk is broken, put your test
demonstrating that breakage either on a branch or as a patch in the
tracker, and ask folks here to review it.  *Don't* bogart the clean
build status of your trunk:  checking in a breaking test is like pulling
the emergency stop lever on the subway.

- --
Tres Seaver          +1 540-429-0999          tsea...@palladion.com
Palladion Software   "Excellence by Design"    http://palladion.com
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to