Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:74037 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 14964 invoked from network); 7 May 2014 21:22:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 7 May 2014 21:22:12 -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 108.166.43.123 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 108.166.43.123 smtp123.ord1c.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [108.166.43.123] ([108.166.43.123:54349] helo=smtp123.ord1c.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id F9/53-30354-304AA635 for ; Wed, 07 May 2014 17:22:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BE6C21A0CDB; Wed, 7 May 2014 17:22:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp8.relay.ord1c.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 5DCEB1A0A08; Wed, 7 May 2014 17:22:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <536AA3FF.2060207@sugarcrm.com> Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 14:22:07 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ferenc Kovacs CC: Andrea Faulds , PHP Internals References: <536A74BC.30908@sugarcrm.com> <07955C50-C60C-4553-B26F-D24E212FB5F1@ajf.me> <536A88DF.10702@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] CI tests RFC - vote results From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > 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. It does not "require" RFC, the RFC just records what we agreed upon. If it's obvious, fine, even better :) > 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. I agree. The RFC is not meant to create some way to do bad things. You still need to apply common sense and consensus understanding, the RFC is just captures what we think about it so that everybody knows that's what we're doing. > But of course they are only options, so I guess people/RMs won't really > use it to shot themselfs to the leg. Yes, I think current RMs understand how it should work, and I am confident we can keep selecting people to be RMs that understand it. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227