Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73817 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 32344 invoked from network); 27 Apr 2014 19:28:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 27 Apr 2014 19:28:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 108.166.43.75 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.75 smtp75.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.75] ([108.166.43.75:39967] helo=smtp75.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F6/70-24825-47A5D535 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:28:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BC6481E94B9; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:28:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp2.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 67F091E94AD; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:28:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <535D5A6F.1080306@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:28:47 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: PHP Internals References: <535A13E1.3050106@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] CI tests RFC From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > However there are one thing I like to add, or other RFCs, the "fix > test to work with patch XYZ" thing sounds bad in general for stable > branches. Usually bc breaks. We may need more clarity here. Well, in most cases, yes, but we've had instances where tests were testing for buggy results, because "this is how it works now". In any case, this is exactly why I put the options to vote - so people could express their opinions about them. Of course, for each specific case it has to be judged on specific basis, one-size-fits-all is not good here. I just wanted to see how people in general feel about each option. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227