On 06/29/2013 02:14 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > AIUI: They do test feature use and errors that have cropped up in the > past that we need to beware of. They don't test every bug we've ever > had, nor do they exercise every piece of code.
If we don't have a test for it, then we can break it in the future and not know we've broken it until .0 is released. Is that really a direction we're happy going in? > > Maybe there is a good case for these last two in a different set of tests. If we had a different set of tests, that would be a valid argument. But we don't, so it's not. And nobody has offered to write a feature to split our tests either. I have to say, I'm really surprised at the level of resistance people on this list are showing to the idea of increasing test coverage. I thought that Postgres was all about reliability? For a project as mature as we are, our test coverage is abysmal, and I think I'm starting to see why. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
