On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:21 PM, David Cournapeau <courn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Christopher Hanley <chan...@stsci.edu> wrote: >> >> I do not expect the trunk to always work. I even expect it to have >> bugs. However, I do not expect there to be test failures for known >> reasons that result in wasSuccessful() returning false. This is a bad >> programming practice. It creates work for people trying to figure out >> what is wrong when the answer is already know. > > Well, I don't agree it is bad practice: it is not ideal, yes, but I > don't think using KnownFailure is much better. My rationale being that > known failures are almost never worked on because it does not bug > anyone anymore, and it is very easy to forget about them - AFAICS, > most numpy/scipy known failures have never been worked on after being > tagged as such. I don't think we have a good system for those cases, > be it known failure - or just failing. > > I will tag them as known failure, since I am the only one against it, though > :)
Done in r6308 - please tell me if something still does not work as expected, David _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
