Re: CI tests RFC - vote results
On 7 May 2014, at 21:31, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is why I didn't liked that option, as that option only makes sense,
> when doing it is plain wrong.
> If somebody fixed a bug, which broke a test, but the change is intentional
> or unaviodable then fixing the test is the right thing to do, and doesn't
> really requires any rfc to support.
> If somebody changed something, which broke some test unintentionally or
> without proper justification then updating the test to accomodate the new
> behavior without ringing the alarm bell is a bad thing to do imo.
> But of course they are only options, so I guess people/RMs won't really use
> it to shot themselfs to the leg.
Hopefully. The process, wherever it’s documented, must make it clear that the test should only be
changed if this is the new expected behaviour, however.
--
Andrea Faulds
http://ajf.me/
Thread (6 messages)