Raymond Hettinger <rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment:
I recommend against this. Our existing test suites are already passing, so there is a near zero value add (from supposedly more informative failures); however, there is a risk that a test will be changed in a subtle way, invalidating what the original author had intended to test. In the past, Guido has opposed these sort of shallow sweeps through code, recommending instead that updates be done in conjunction with a "holistic" refactoring of a single module. It would be a far better use of time to: * add new test coverage (possibly using the new methods) * spend time analyzing and marking which tests are implementation specific ---------- nosy: +rhettinger resolution: -> rejected status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9443> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
