On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Stevan Little wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > > So if TODO_ALL_FOR_RELEASE is true, we just have 'proclaim' treat all
> > > failures as TODO. Sounds effective enough.
> >
> > I'm probably misunderstanding, but this sounds *too* effective.
> > Wouldn't it also mask unexpected failures?
>
> Yes it would, but it would be a tool only used for release (if at all). And
> Pugs common practice it to mask all failures in the release.
Not exactly (again, assuming I understand this all correctly). It's been
common practice to mask all *expected* failures (though the extent to
which one ought to appeal to "historical" practice in Pugs is a bit
unclear to me ...).
My question is about *unexpected* failures. Do you really want to mask
them too? If so, why not simply disable the 'make test' target in the
release?
Here's a scenario I have in mind: If I ever successfully bootstrap
ghc-6.4, then I'll try to run Pugs. In my experience, trying things on
new platforms often yields surprises. Things like processor wordsize and
endianness, alignment constraints, different underlying C libraries, etc.,
are the sorts of things worth testing for. Masking any such failures would
seem counterproductive to the whole point of trying to get Pugs running on
a new architecture in the first place.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
