As long as the test-environment follows up (within a reasonable time), I am fine.
On 23 October 2015 at 14:52, Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo) < petri.savolai...@nokia.com> wrote: > > > > > *From:* EXT Mike Holmes [mailto:mike.hol...@linaro.org] > *Sent:* Friday, October 23, 2015 3:43 PM > *To:* Christophe Milard > *Cc:* Savolainen, Petri (Nokia - FI/Espoo); lng-odp > *Subject:* Re: [lng-odp] [API-NEXT PATCH v3 3/7] api: doc: re-organize > doxygen doc for synchronizer > > > > > > > > On 23 October 2015 at 08:40, Christophe Milard < > christophe.mil...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Well, I agree that the test environment should not prevent API > improvement: The test environment should simply follow the API as it moves. > I see no problem with this change as long as the test environment follows > it. I do see a problem, though, if it does not... What structure should the > test environment have then? none? > > > > > > This is an api-next patch so it could go in and wait for the follow-up, > but history is starting to show that doing this is starting to leave > api-next changes floating that cannot be merged to master because no one > addresses the gating items. If we take this in I think we need to make a > bug to address the follow up. > > > > It fine to report a bug. Missing validation tests are easier to track with > code coverage tools, etc. I choose to fix broken API documentation logic > instead of just copying it (which would have been less work for us all). > > -Petri > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list lng-odp@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
