Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> added the comment: Nick Coghlan wrote: > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: > > Hah, I've been dealing with Python's regression test suite for 8+ years and > there are still cases where I don't understand the rationale for testing > things a particular way (beyond "it must have seemed like a good idea at the > time"). It has a lot more historical cruft than the standard library does :) > > The "proper" location for a particular test can be a bit of a coin toss in > many cases, but one useful guide (which applies in this case) is to try to > avoid adding *new* standard library dependencies to a test module if there's > an alternate suitable location that already has those dependencies.
I just checked the patch and it still applies cleanly with the two effected tests passing. Nick, any chance of getting this checked in and closed? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue14136> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
