From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 10:53:01
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Martin Wille wrote:
>> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> Another interesting example is adding a new test that exposes an
>>> existing bug. This test has never passed, but its inclusion is
>>> prevented by the stability requirement.
>> No, in this scenario, the bug has been there before. There's no break
>> of stability if the bug gets indicated by the testing harness from
>> some point in time on.
> There is no break in stability, but there is a violation of the stability
> requirements, which demand that there should be no test failures on the
> stable branch. This prevents the merge of the new test unless the same merge
> also contains a fix.
You can mark the failure "expected" if you don't have a fix for it.
We could extend our markup to allow for "expected failure, fix needed"
to contrast "expected failure, target platform broken beyond repair" or
"expected failure, feature not supported on target platform".
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk