Am Donnerstag, 26. November 2015 um 22:18:18, schrieb Guenter Milde
> On 2015-11-26, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am 26. November 2015 um 11:23:46, schrieb Guenter Milde
>
> >> The following proposal for an export test case categorisation tries to
> >> avoid the controversial terms "inverted/reverte
On 2015-11-26, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am 26. November 2015 um 11:23:46, schrieb Guenter Milde
>> The following proposal for an export test case categorisation tries to
>> avoid the controversial terms "inverted/reverted", "suspended", and
>> "ignored".
>> Instead, the basic distinction is between
Am Donnerstag, 26. November 2015 um 11:23:46, schrieb Guenter Milde
> On 2015-11-23, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am 23. November 2015 um 16:38:20, schrieb Guenter Milde
>
> ...
>
> > Maybe you could propose different names?
>
> The following proposal for an export test case categorisation tries t
On 2015-11-23, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am 23. November 2015 um 16:38:20, schrieb Guenter Milde
...
> Maybe you could propose different names?
The following proposal for an export test case categorisation tries to avoid
the controversial terms "inverted/reverted", "suspended", and "ignored".
Inst
Am Montag, 23. November 2015 um 16:38:20, schrieb Guenter Milde
...
> >> Up to here, I hope we can agree.
>
> > Partly. I made the comments where I think it should be more precise.
>
> Which of the follwing is true?
>
> a) whether a combination of document, output format, and scripted change
On 2015-11-23, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am Montag, 23. November 2015 um 13:09:40, schrieb Guenter Milde
>
>> On 2015-11-22, Kornel Benko wrote:
>> > We apparently don't understand each other.
>> Indeed, there is a misunderstanding, but I believe to be a bit wiser now.
>> Please correct me where I
Am Montag, 23. November 2015 um 13:09:40, schrieb Guenter Milde
> Dear Kornel and Scott (and everyone else interested in export tests),
>
> On 2015-11-22, Kornel Benko wrote:
>
>
> > We apparently don't understand each other.
>
> Indeed, there is a misunderstanding, but I believe to be a bit
Dear Kornel and Scott (and everyone else interested in export tests),
On 2015-11-22, Kornel Benko wrote:
> We apparently don't understand each other.
Indeed, there is a misunderstanding, but I believe to be a bit wiser now.
Please correct me where I am still wrong.
> For me, ignored test is
Am Samstag, 21. November 2015 um 18:54:51, schrieb Scott Kostyshak
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:38:54PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> > On 2015-11-20, Kornel Benko wrote:
>
> > > To make it clear: Everything ignored cannot be tested.
> >
> > Then, there is a fundamental flaw in the test machin
Am Samstag, 21. November 2015 um 23:38:54, schrieb Guenter Milde
> > If we want to see, if anything
> > changed (like XeTeX), we should be able to retest.
> > like 'ctest -L suspended'
>
> We should be able to retest like 'ctest -L ignored'
We apparently don't understand each other. For m
On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:38:54PM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> On 2015-11-20, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > To make it clear: Everything ignored cannot be tested.
>
> Then, there is a fundamental flaw in the test machinery:
>
> We need a category and rule-set for tests where:
>
> * we don't care f
On 2015-11-20, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am 20. November 2015 um 11:20:54, schrieb Guenter Milde
>> My suggestion would be to have the following categories and sub-categories:
>> * export # we expect the export to succeed
> this is also a candidate for regressions
>> * r
On 2015-11-20, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Am 18. November 2015 um 18:56:59, schrieb Guenter Milde
>> Generally, I don't think it is a good idea to "massage" the documents
>> shipping with lyx in the test machinery until the tests pass.
>> * If the document can be made more robust (i.e. working with m
13 matches
Mail list logo
