Re: expected failures shouldn't raise alarms

Karl Fogel wrote:

>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>>I say, if that list will get longer and longer, then I should print it
>>in blinking mode. It's there as an incentive for fixing the test suite.
>>
>>
>
>No :-). Seriously, -1, although I understand where you're coming from.
>

Let me try to recapitulate what you want:

    * Lose the summary section
    * List only unexpected results (FAIL and XPASS)

Right?

One more detail: Does an XPASS mean the tests should fail (i.e., exit
with non-zero)?

I'll bow to the majority opinion (strange, you seem to be a one-man
majority :-), and fix things as soon as I get these answers. Then I'll
add an XFAIL mechanism to the C tests, just to be consistent.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org