Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:34:37 -0800, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL
>>>>>> PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> See above. Once the bug is reported there is no justification to keep
> >> the test around. In this case I prefer a skip over a removal because
> >> the test apparently once was useful.
>
> > Buuuut skipped tests don't get run so it's effectively deleted, except a
> > permanently skipped test sits around cluttering things up. Smells like
> > commenting out code that maybe someday you might want to use again in the
> > future. Just adds clutter.
>
> > If I want to bring a test (or code) back from the dead that's what version
> > control is for.
>
> I think I did indicate I was talking about a $VERSION-dependent skip.
>
> Let me reiterate.
>
> A test reveals a bug in module A, version N. The bug now is known and
> filed to RT. No need to run it again and again. Skip it ***if version
> N of module A is installed***. Apparently the test was useful to
> detect a malfunctioning of module A. Do not throw it away until you
> have verified that the test has found a better home. If it has found a
> better home for sure, I do not care if you delete it.
>
> POtherwise it is vital to keep the test because it has proved to be
> useful. It is unacceptable to to run the test on the broken version
> over and over again. A $VERSION check should be sufficient from that
> point in time on.
>
> What if everybody on CPAN deletes tests just because a related bug has
> been fixed? Nobody would notice if the bug were reintroduced.
>
> Nuff said?
Now I understand, I thought you meant an unconditional skip.
--
If at first you don't succeed--you fail.
-- "Portal" demo
