[Numpy-discussion] ticket 788: possible blocker
Travis E. Oliphant
Tue May 13 15:08:27 CDT 2008
Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Travis E. Oliphant
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
More information about the Numpy-discussion