Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74035 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 9897 invoked from network); 7 May 2014 20:31:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 May 2014 20:31:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tyra3l@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tyra3l@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.182 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.216.182 mail-qc0-f182.google.com Received: from [209.85.216.182] ([209.85.216.182:60148] helo=mail-qc0-f182.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 91/72-30354-F189A635 for ; Wed, 07 May 2014 16:31:27 -0400 Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id e16so1808720qcx.13 for ; Wed, 07 May 2014 13:31:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=sGJMi+gfLcQY0FbG7T4ZFDzfJuxw5KIq4K76l3sLtUw=; b=GqN8dUbh4z99EqwrBSxUzzzRiDQlRPyIo2ttAQmhS/IffJAtByqdmuMFJDlVhAtFeA lS5nGfrN+8CPzG3bKXGdpblIQx5bL0JXs9fH5h2KPzU5F+MiwOizlNY3x7/j3otz6vtt ViwdkAx0EzfpzqyLpkNtC+nlu5dVzsnZy5KYo18GqGk+eoNiLf3gKi3BK/OPFDzzxLSa vrDXAZ8k8jEgHcHx9Qo3e6CM/36QYPnAYCi/I1cJjzf3L2VGgexweQmujV/eIQWa0wzw +F3PidFf5FFXgkRymVgRrHDTOc3wB01V/jzghx62yD6YnHYfVIP9+jYMHIoWTMrFnbZN C7KA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.4.5 with SMTP id 5mr68828039qap.85.1399494684484; Wed, 07 May 2014 13:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.17.34 with HTTP; Wed, 7 May 2014 13:31:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <536A88DF.10702@sugarcrm.com> References: <536A74BC.30908@sugarcrm.com> <07955C50-C60C-4553-B26F-D24E212FB5F1@ajf.me> <536A88DF.10702@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 22:31:24 +0200 Message-ID: To: Stas Malyshev Cc: Andrea Faulds , PHP Internals Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c219ea88c65704f8d53f01 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] CI tests RFC - vote results From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs) --001a11c219ea88c65704f8d53f01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote= : > Hi! > > > So, to clarify, does this mean that, in future, we=E2=80=99ll be changi= ng tests > > to accept bugs if trunk contains the bug? > > This means that changing test is one of the acceptable solutions to fix > CI failure. Of course, if it is a bug, then it makes no sense to change > the test, in that case the change has to be reverted. > > -- > Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect > SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ > (408)454-6900 ext. 227 > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > This is why I didn't liked that option, as that option only makes sense, when doing it is plain wrong. If somebody fixed a bug, which broke a test, but the change is intentional or unaviodable then fixing the test is the right thing to do, and doesn't really requires any rfc to support. If somebody changed something, which broke some test unintentionally or without proper justification then updating the test to accomodate the new behavior without ringing the alarm bell is a bad thing to do imo. But of course they are only options, so I guess people/RMs won't really use it to shot themselfs to the leg. --=20 Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --001a11c219ea88c65704f8d53f01--