<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Guys, this is ridiculus. If a test fails, the correct approach is not to > remove the test from the test suite. The hole point of the test suite is > to ensure that APR works the same on _ALL_ platforms. If it doesn't, then > it is just as hard to write portable programs with APR as without. > > There are two options when a test fails. 1) Fix the bug in the APR code. > 2) Introduce a feature macro that allows programmers to determine if a > feature exists with #ifdefs. Removing a test is _not_ an option. It > weakens APR's portability. > > Plus, not long after Will added this test, I posted to the list remarking > that it was a problematic test and looking for possible solutions. We > should at least have a conversation over how we want to deal with this. > > -1 for removing this test.
What is the precise technical reason for your veto? I think it is not a valid property to test in an APR test suite (outside the scope of APR) and it is harmful to leave it there (not portable). -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
