William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Guenter Knauf wrote: >> Hi, >> William A. Rowe Jr. schrieb: >>> I see good responses to the list from Branko, Joe and Jeff (and thanks >>> for the bugfix Branko), so I'll proceed with this tonight, we'll have >>> the usual 72hr vote, and then let's start this discussion over about >>> the much larger changes in apr-util 1.4 ;) >> I think we should take a look into the apr/apu tests first; Ruediger >> mentioned this a while ago that we only report failures, but dont bail >> out but instead try to use NULL pointers where we expect to have valid >> pointers ...; therefore failing tests produce segfaults on some >> platforms ... > > I don't see that as a showstopper to a major/minor bump; these are always > bug fixes that can be addressed. > > What would be nice is if we could modify the test framework itself, perhaps > fatal v.s. fail&continue flavors of all tests, to encourage the appropriate > and proper logic in all test cases.
Raises the question; are the contents of test/ subject to ABI, or only the prototypes of include/* (nonrecursive)?
