On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:42:08 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:31:24 +0200 > Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > This is probably sophistry, but if an issue is invalid, it doesn't need > > a patch :) > > Not only, but it generally gets closed too. > > > The first stage seems to be "unit test needed" anyway, which > > sounds to me a bit like "needs to be checked for reproducibility/validity". > > I don't like this first stage, it makes it look like we mandate a > proper unit test to proceed with actually writing patches, which is > really not true.
Why isn't it? :) Seriously, though, what it indicates is indicates is that we need a unit test for the patch to be complete. We have a number of issues with patches but no tests, I believe. Which order 'unit test' and 'fix' occur in is arbitrary in practice. I certainly prefer to have the unit tests first myself, though. The problem is that the stage field really isn't all that useful. I'd prefer a set of check boxes, as I've suggested in the wiki. I was the one who advocated labeling it 'unit test needed', but if people would rather change it back to just 'test needed', I will raise no objection, since in practice trying to squeeze the meaning I wanted into the stage field doesn't really work. -- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
