Re: Mauve test question

[Thomas Zander]

On Tuesday 28 December 2004 18:28, Michael Koch wrote:
> > Huh? Why is adding broken tests the right thing to do? And besides,
> > if a broken test is added, this way there will be motivation to
> > resolve the discrepancy. With a whitelist, a broken test can get
> > added but no one will notice and then it just sits there getting
> > stale.
>
> Its common practise to add new code to one implementation, e.g GNU
> classpath or libgcj, and test it for a while and later merge it to
> kaffe. According to you the mauve tests don't need to be added before
> it's included in all implementations because nothing may be broken.

Ehm; just being a bystander;  a broken test in Archies email is a test that 
does not work properly (harness.check(1 ==2)).
A broken test we are talking about, and what Michael seems to imply; is a 
test that is fully correct, and will (probably) run correctly on Suns JVM, 
but fails on another.

Lets call the former a broken, and the latter a failing test, please :)

Mauve is not suppost to hold _any_ broken tests, right?

-- 
Thomas Zander

pgp_2EoMDNhXl.pgp
Description: PGP signature