[Numpy-discussion] ticket 788: possible blocker

Travis E. Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Tue May 13 15:08:27 CDT 2008


Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
> <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>  Besides,  having a "test-per-checkin" is not the proper mapping in my
>>  mind.   I'd rather see whole check-ins devoted to testing large pieces
>>  of code rather than spend all unit-test foo on a rigid policy of
>>  "regression" testing each check-in.
>>     
>
> Stéfan is proposing "test-per-bugfix", not "test-per-checkin". That is
> eminently feasible. You need to do some kind of testing to be sure
> that you actually fixed the problem. It is simply *not* *that* *hard*
> to write that in unit test form.
>   
That is not true.  You *don't* need to do testing to be sure you 
actually fixed the problem in some cases....  Looking at the code is 
enough.   Like the case we are talking about.

-Travis





More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list