-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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?
- - 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -