Re: CI tests RFC - vote results

On 7 May 2014, at 21:31, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> 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’s 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/