On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 11:42:59PM -0800, Dan Price wrote: > > However, I think before we can institute this, the testsuite needs to > > support known failures. Otherwise it's going to be a royal pain in the > > butt to run the suite and see dozens of errors you're not fixing and you > > can't really do anything about. > > I'm not clear whether I can do this without a substantial rewrite of > unittest. It may be possible, but I've avoided looking at the > implementation of unittest itself, in the event that I need to reauthor > something equivalent to it at some point. I'm obviously reluctant to do > major hacking on something like unittest... > > Can you live with some inconvenience in the short term?
Short term, yes. But people are going to be scared by lots of noise when they run the test suite, and if a) they're required to before putting back and b) we're supposed to be adding more known failure cases, then the noise is going to get out of control pretty quickly and make this venture a failure. :( So I think short term needs to be pretty damned short. > Is it OK, from a licensing perspective, to just take the code for > unittest and start hacking? (Perhaps we'll have to take that > off-alias). I did read the header comment, which says "...you may > redistribute it and/or modify it under the same terms as Python > itself..." but IANAL and I'm not sure what those terms are. The Python license (http://www.python.org/psf/license/) is pretty much equivalent to the public domain. We've done similar things already with Queue and tarfile, so unittest can probably be whacked at, too. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
