Very sorry, there're some typing mistakes in last letter. Please ignore it.
Hello, Anton, On 4/17/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 4/17/06, Anton Avtamonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > No, we don't need all those branches. Only the branch for Harmony. > > Only for those cases when we DO know that we have a deviation. > > IMHO, I prefer to have all tests passing on RI (which verify tests > > itself) and on Harmony (which verifies Harmony). > > > > > But there ARE some different behaviours between Harmony and RI. > How could our test case show these differences if all are passed both on > RI and Harmony? > I think our test cases should indicate these differences rather hiding > them. > > Failures should > > indicate something wrong with tests or with Harmony code. There should > > be no other failures, I think. > > > Yes. So I think all test cases should pass on Harmony, but *NOT* on RI > :-) > Failures on RI mean RI has different understanding or behaviours compared > to Harmony criteria, or in other words, they're wrong behaviours according > to Harmony criteria. > > That is a bit similar to 'exclude list' we introduced: we don't want > to have failures when they are expected and predictable. > > > -- > Anton Avtamonov, > Intel Middleware Products Division > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > Andrew Zhang > > China Software Development Lab, IBM > -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
