From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 18:03:00
Michael Marcin wrote:
> 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.
> So if library A highlights a bug in library B than the author of library
> A must go and fix the bug in library B and add covering tests even
> though he isn't the maintainer? This seems like a recipe for subtle bugs
> and peoples toes getting stepped on.
Not necessarily. However, the maintainer of A would be responsible to
drive the process of fixing B. How the workload is balanced between the
maintainers of A and B, depends no the individual case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk