On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 09:08:42AM -0400, Geoffrey Young wrote: > > > This makes the test fail against 2.0.50, but it's just a lack-of-feature > > right, so OK if I half-revert this? > > the last time I asked about this, the consensus was that the perl-framework > is expected to be for developer use only, expected to run (and in some cases > compile) successfully only on current CVS 1.3/2.0/2.1.
Well, my position is: I don't care whether it passes against 1.3 (which it doesn't :), I do care that it works against the latest 2.0 release along with tip-of-2.0-branch and 2.1/HEAD as you say. When testing for *bugs*, there's certainly a debate about whether to skip tests for bugs in older releases (I don't care much are about that). For *features*, I don't think there's much to argue about. We know this feature works only in 2.0.51 and later, so why test for it in earlier releases? (this is the only failure against 2.0.50 other than the mod_include unexpected passes fwiw) Regards, joe
