Re: tree-conflicts: patch for improved cmdline tests

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:22 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>...
> note that there's also XFail(), which can be used to mark
> tests which are expected to fail.
>
> In this case, almost every test would need to be flagged XFail.
> However, migrating tests from XFail to PASS by changing Subversion's
> code only might be less confusing than migrating tests from PASS
> to PASS by changing both Subversion's code and the test in the same go.

Yeah. XFail seems the right way to go.

I'd prefer to see these tests added to trunk rather than the branch.
More testing on the trunk never seems bad :-) And it isn't like
they'll interfere with any other trunk development or break something
in trunk. But they *can* help with other dev that might be happening
there.

Thoughts?

(my one possible "con": working on both trunk and a branch, but that
might be an okay thing)

Cheers,
-g

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-18 15:24:38 CEST