Re: Comments on Mathias blog post about contributing
"Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.openoffice.devel.tools |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Mathias, > Really, this part of the work is superfluous. IMHO tests that are known > to be broken in a particular milestone should be skipped in a CWS based > on it also. Don't think this is a good idea, since a test can be broken in different ways. For instance, if your test checks 10 aspects, and one of them is broken in MWS, you still want to know if the other 9 are okay in your CWS. Otherwise, you'll notice a breakage in those 9 only when the one failure is fixed, and the whole test re-enabled in MWS. An interesting read (IMO), somewhat related to the topic: http://blog.ulf-wendel.de/?p=259 (sorry, German, but I know you speak it pretty well :) My favoite quote, which I'd strongly agree to: Deactivating a test, to reach "0 test failures", is wrong, since the equality of a failure is also a sensible information. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [email protected] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -