Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
First up, are all perl-qa messages going to bootstrap as well? If so, I don't need to be on both lists. In <20000726165118.F1854@athens.aocn.com>, Michael G Schwern writes: :In One Sentence :--------------- : :All patches to perl must have an associated testing patch. Can you explain more about how you'll test documentation? I can see the value of a single test that checks all documentation is properly formatted, but I don't see what a patch to fix some documentation - whether it is a typo, or a better way of saying something, or fixing something that's documented incorrectly - can usefully have by way of an additional regression test. Many patches also come into existence because some regression test is already failing. This applies in particular to configuration issues, but also elsewhere. Do these need new tests? It is currently an (apparent) no-no to add tests to perl that fail. While I can understand the desire to avoid distressing end users with fully anticipated test failures, I think we need a better solution to this - when a problem is identified, the _first_ thing that should appear is the new test that identifies the problem by failing. Just because we're not sure how to fix the problem yet, or haven't had the tuits yet, is no reason not to add the failing test. HugoThread Previous | Thread Next