Hyrum K Wright wrote on Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 18:01:02 -0600: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote: > > Mark Phippard wrote on Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:47:14 -0500: > >> The take-away for me is that if we adopted a convention (or did > >> something in the test code) to make sure that all XFails were > >> associated with an issue then it would collectively save the project a > >> lot of time and effort in understanding the significance of each > >> XFailing test. This becomes especially important in the run-ups to > >> releases. > > > > Sounds reasonable to me --- just one place to look at. > > Agreed. >
See r1066709.
