[Python-Dev] About resolution “accepted” on the tracker (original) (raw)

R. David Murray rdmurray at bitdance.com
Tue Oct 19 02:07:34 CEST 2010

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:42:08 +0200, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:31:24 +0200 Georg Brandl <g.brandl at gmx.net> wrote: > > This is probably sophistry, but if an issue is invalid, it doesn't need > a patch :)

Not only, but it generally gets closed too. > The first stage seems to be "unit test needed" anyway, which > sounds to me a bit like "needs to be checked for reproducibility/validity". I don't like this first stage, it makes it look like we mandate a proper unit test to proceed with actually writing patches, which is really not true.

Why isn't it? :)

Seriously, though, what it indicates is indicates is that we need a unit test for the patch to be complete. We have a number of issues with patches but no tests, I believe. Which order 'unit test' and 'fix' occur in is arbitrary in practice. I certainly prefer to have the unit tests first myself, though.

The problem is that the stage field really isn't all that useful. I'd prefer a set of check boxes, as I've suggested in the wiki.

I was the one who advocated labeling it 'unit test needed', but if people would rather change it back to just 'test needed', I will raise no objection, since in practice trying to squeeze the meaning I wanted into the stage field doesn't really work.

-- R. David Murray www.bitdance.com

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list