On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 06:16:24PM +0200, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> I completely second this and would like to apologize for wasting anyone's time
> with regtests.
oops, my initial email was a bit too harsh. I should have written
"in the future, if James finds problems in your patch, you sho
On Jul 24, 2011, at 6:05 PM, Graham Percival wrote:
> Mike recently posted a patch with the comment "don't run the
> regtests on this; this patch is just a proof-of-concept" (or
> something like that). I think this is a great idea; let's do more
> of it! If a patch is not explicitly called "proo
tl;dr: if James does a regtest check of your patch and sees
problems, you should be ashamed.
In the past few weeks, we've had a fantastic deluge of patches.
Fantastic deluge is fantastic.
However, our ratio of regtest-passing-patches vs. problem-patches
has gone way down. That's not fantastic.
