Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge whisperback:bugfix/…

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Autor: Alan
Data:  
Para: tails-dev
Novos Tópicos: Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge whisperback:bugfix/filter_more_serial_nos
Assunto: Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge whisperback:bugfix/filter_more_serial_nos
Hi,

> Alan wrote (07 Mar 2014 13:51:02 GMT) :
> >> * HACKING has not been updated to document that one should run
> >> the test suite before releasing (fixed in c31f5a5)
>
> > This was kind of intended, as it is far from complete and the
> > refactoring it is supposed to test didn't happen yet (see:
> > https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6799)
>
> >>   * the test suite does not pass for me (see below); does it pass
> >>     for you?

> >>
> > No, and it's kind of intended:
> > https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6799. Do you prefer I comment
> > that test now?
>
> IMO the test suite should match the current state of the code, and not
> be expected to fail, else it's basically useless. Most testing
> frameworks I know have a feature to mark a given set of tests as
> "TODO, expected to fail" (either called "TODO" or "SKIP", depending on
> the framework).
>
> Please either make use of this feature, or comment out the buggy test.
>

This feature was added in python 2.7 which is not in Tails, so I was
too lazy to use it. I added some compatibility code and use it now.

> >> So I'm giving up for now. Alan, do you think you'll have time to
> >> take care of this today? Otherwise, please mark this set of
> >> tickets as postponed to whatever version you think it can be ready
> >> for.
> >>
> > Sorry I didn't had time before to comment. Sorry to to have precized
> > all that.
>
> > I was willing to merge this so that at least most known leaks would
> > be solved for 1.0. Do you think it's still possible?
>
> I'm not be particularly excited at the idea of merging this after the
> freeze, while we have had 3 months (since the last major release) to
> make it ready (minus the time when the problem was reported, but that
> was a while ago anyway). IMO this change is not particularly urgent,
> and does not deserve a freeze exception.
>
> But this is not my call, so maybe you'll want to 1. fix the remaining
> problems ASAP; 2. talk to the current RM.
>

So I think the problems you raised are solved now. I'll let the release
manager for 1.0 decide if it should go in this release or be postponed
for 1.1.

Cheers,