| 1 |
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 06:19:16 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 23:16:04 -0600 |
| 5 |
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > if people are just going to RESTRICT tests when they fail (and they |
| 7 |
> > will, because it's a hell of a lot easier than actually fixing |
| 8 |
> > them), what's the point of having a testsuite at all? and once a |
| 9 |
> > testsuite is restricted, it'll stay restricted even if upstream |
| 10 |
> > fixes the problem because no one will bother checking. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You're assuming that developers are lazy, incompetent and don't care |
| 13 |
> about QA. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Historically speaking, yes. Well, one and three at least. ;) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> If this isn't the case, developers will instead fix or |
| 18 |
> remove individual test failures where reasonably possible, and will |
| 19 |
> unrestrict tests when doing version bumps. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That would be awesome, and i'd love to be proven wrong. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gcc-porting, by design, by neglect |
| 26 |
treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect |
| 27 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives