Re: CI tests RFC - vote results

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