Re: More error leaks

Julian Foad wrote:
> Malcolm Rowe wrote:
>>
>> By moving
>> _all_ the callers to use svn_foo2(), don't we lose test coverage of the
>> original svn_foo()?
>
> Yes.

As long as svn_foo() is a wrapper around svn_foo2(), AND during
development the testing passed with all callers using svn_foo(), is
there anything reason to require continued testing? I'm thinking
specifically about the keywords-as-hash patch which was done in multiple
steps for exactly that reason...

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org