On 20/09/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 14:35, Fergal Daly wrote:
> HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE A GOOD THING? Compare it with the case where
> we make them real tests
>
> - a prefectly clear run means nothing is broken
> - a run with failures means something is broken
>
> which is exactly how life should be.
Fine, so you write Test::Harness::Fergal that completely reverses the meaning
of all tests in TODO blocks and run it yourself and try to get other people
to run it. Just don't file bugs against any of my TODO tests, because it'll
only make more work for me to reject them.
When did I say I wanted to change Test::Harness?
I've already said twice in this thread that I am _not_ keen on
changing the current behavior. So to be clear:
* I'm happy with Test::Harness as it is *
I don't want to reverse all TODO tests because that would break the
case where people are using them correctly.
For an example of what I consider correct usage see the Test::More man page!
If you want to take issue with the arguments in my last email, go ahead,
F
-- c
