Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:23:16PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > You may want to think about psychology and wording, though. If
> > someone writes a code patch but does not supply tests/docs, and he or
> > she is told that the patch is rejected because of that deficiency, he
> > or she might not submit patches ever again. Writing good test cases
> > is much harder than the actual fixing itself, but we still should
> > give positive feedback to the fixer for his or her efforts.
>
> Yes yes yes! Instant rejection of patch submissions bad. Instead of
> rejection, we may want to establish a holding area for incomplete
> patches. It will have to be very careful wording to make sure they
> understand the patch is waiting for completion as opposed to
> rejection. I'm probably too blunt to write those messages.
I'm still concerned here about the possibility of patches that are
'simply' refactorings of the code, where the only possible test is
'All the existing tests give the same result, but the code is more
readable and easier to extend', with the second clause being a bit
hard to test in an automated fashion.
--
Piers
