| 1 |
Luca Barbato schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Bernd Steinhauser wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Luca Barbato schrieb: |
| 4 |
>>> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> The point is to make pkgcore a better package manager by getting the |
| 6 |
>>>> developers to do some basic testing. We're not talking some obscure, |
| 7 |
>>>> weird bug here. We're talking a really obvious, major screwup that a |
| 8 |
>>>> couple of quick unit tests would catch straight away. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> No, you aren't talking, you are babbling about undefined flaws that |
| 11 |
>>> nobody can evaluate, for which you aren't providing a way to |
| 12 |
>>> reproduce it and possibly doesn't exist. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> lu |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>> So in your opinion, the pkgcore maintainers should just say "Screw it, |
| 17 |
>> it was just Ciaran who said that." and move on? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> He doesn't point any issue in particular. |
| 20 |
And that wasn't the point. He pointed out, that there is an issue, that |
| 21 |
hasn't been caught because of missing tests. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
>> Why is "Create tests for EAPI=1 stuff." not a way to describe how to |
| 24 |
>> reproduce a problem? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> because EAPI1 isn't specified completely so you don't have a large field |
| 27 |
> to cover but you also do not know the bounds of it. |
| 28 |
It really doesn't matter how it is specified. You have an implementation |
| 29 |
of it and should make sure, that this implementation works. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives