Re: Policy about not-yet-regression tests?

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:06:09PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:01 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> do we just want regression tests for things that _do_ work currently,
>> >> or is it ok to add tests for things that _should_ work but don't, as
>> >> long as the test does not bomb out?
>> >
>> > I think adding things that don't work is not a good idea; it will
>> > confuse people, and add noise for developers.
>
> Agreed.  We have enough confusion about the regtests as it is.

[...]

>> I am talking about bugs without a fix.  Sometimes they disappear as a
>> sideeffect of fixing a different bug, or restructuring code.
>
> I think the issue tracker is the best place for that.  It's true
> that sometimes issues get fixed magically, and occasionally we
> look through the regtest to identify those.

Uh, what?  If bugs must not be added to the regtest, how can looking
through the regtest help with identifying bugs that have been fixed?

-- 
David Kastrup