On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:59PM +0000, James Troup wrote: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> would pretty much ensure that the package never, ever builds. And > > > > Well, if it's always broken, we don't really want it, do we? > > If 'failing tests == broken' then we wouldn't have a working compiler > for any architecture and/or for any release. I think there's a small > flaw in your logic.
So what are the tests useful for, then? They're obviously useless as a gauge of quality, because failing tests apparently don't indicate a flaw in the software. - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
