Michael Marcin wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Martin Wille wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Another interesting example is adding a new test that exposes an existing bug. This test has never passed, but its inclusion is prevented by the stability requirement. No, in this scenario, the bug has been there before. There's no break of stability if the bug gets indicated by the testing harness from some point in time on. There is no break in stability, but there is a violation of the stability requirements, which demand that there should be no test failures on the stable branch. This prevents the merge of the new test unless the same merge also contains a fix.
So if library A highlights a bug in library B than the author of library A must go and fix the bug in library B and add covering tests even though he isn't the maintainer? This seems like a recipe for subtle bugs and peoples toes getting stepped on.
Not necessarily. However, the maintainer of A would be responsible to drive the process of fixing B. How the workload is balanced between the maintainers of A and B, depends no the individual case. Regards, m