On 11/14/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
9) Norman knew that Noel worked on that code and probably knew how to
fix it, so the best temporary solution was to comment out the test and
open a JIRA issue to be sure that Noel not forget the issue, or to be
sure that someone else could have assigned this issue to himself later.
This *is* what "started the flames". Imho it has been a good procedure
and I (by mistake) thought we all agree that tests have to pass before
committing and if they fail it is a mistake of the committer (to be
reverted or to be workarounded until fixed).
I did not intend to start flames, although vetoing is not a good way
to prevent this ;-)
But I recognized we had no common understanding what the unit tests
mean to other committers and this is fine to be discussed.
Institutionalized testing is still quite new to this project and some
may not even have extensive experience writing tests.
I have no more time for this issue. I think it is really a matter of
preferences, so if anyone thinks that failing tests should be accepted
and that another developer that find a unit test cannot comment it out
and open a JIRA issue to remember this to the committer that broke the
test, then please start a vote. It seems to me we already discussed too
much on this issue: it's time for decisions.
Alright, alright. :-)
The baseline from this discussion as I read it, is that the tests are
important, they should pass most of the time, they should grow. Making
them work has priority. In the best case they should be run before
every commit, but this is to the developers discretion.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
