Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74036 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11343 invoked from network); 7 May 2014 20:35:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 May 2014 20:35:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=ajf@ajf.me; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=ajf@ajf.me; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain ajf.me designates 192.64.116.214 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: ajf@ajf.me X-Host-Fingerprint: 192.64.116.214 imap4-4.ox.privateemail.com Received: from [192.64.116.214] ([192.64.116.214:43956] helo=imap4-4.ox.privateemail.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 26/C2-30354-5099A635 for ; Wed, 07 May 2014 16:35:18 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4880756007C; Wed, 7 May 2014 16:35:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at imap4.ox.privateemail.com Received: from mail.privateemail.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (imap4.ox.privateemail.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id dquFalDAVhYw; Wed, 7 May 2014 16:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.200] (unknown [2.218.135.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA9C5560082; Wed, 7 May 2014 16:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0AF0A18F-037B-4847-ABFD-5A5171B0450C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 21:35:06 +0100 Cc: Stas Malyshev , PHP Internals Message-ID: <5A52138A-0855-4268-BB85-CA42E2BA34B3@ajf.me> References: <536A74BC.30908@sugarcrm.com> <07955C50-C60C-4553-B26F-D24E212FB5F1@ajf.me> <536A88DF.10702@sugarcrm.com> To: Ferenc Kovacs X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] CI tests RFC - vote results From: ajf@ajf.me (Andrea Faulds) --Apple-Mail=_0AF0A18F-037B-4847-ABFD-5A5171B0450C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On 7 May 2014, at 21:31, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > 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. Hopefully. The process, wherever it=92s documented, must make it clear = that the test should only be changed if this is the new expected = behaviour, however. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/ --Apple-Mail=_0AF0A18F-037B-4847-ABFD-5A5171B0450C--