Re: Perlbugtron interface mods

>>>>> "TP" == Tony Payne <[email protected]> writes:
>> > Why does the bugtron need to support tests?  Why cannot they just
>> be > included as part of messages?  Tony?
TP> There's nothing forcing this.  The big win is that it enables you
TP> to automate maintenance of the bug repository.  What I'm thinking
TP> of is a process that once a week or so builds bleedperl, runs all
TP> the tests in the repository and does the following:

TP> 1) If all the tests assigned to a specific bug pass, proposes that
TP> the bug be closed 2) If a test fails which is assigned to no open
TP> bugs, it creates a new bug report.

This will be very interesting, and useful, if it works properly.

It will require a bit of human intervention for it to work properly.
But I suppose thats true of any fancy feature we add.

TP> I agree.  Tests would be 100% optional and would be there to make
TP> life easier for the admins.  If the admins don't think it would
TP> help them, then it's probably not worth the effort.

Right.

>>  I like the idea of a bug being a bug and not a ticket, myself, and
>> this is kind of a good excuse to migrate away from the -t thing.

This is just semantics. :)  Maybe we should call them all 'nits'
(Just kidding.)

-R