David Abrahams wrote:
on Thu Nov 01 2007, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
on Wed Oct 31 2007, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote: Patches should only be a high priority if they fix bugs... and in that case they should come with a test that breaks until the bug is fixed. It is very useful and a sign of good software engineering if a test case accompanies a bug fix. But patch submitters don't always have enough time or knowledge of a library's test setup to submit test cases. I'd rather fixes be prioritized based on severity rather than whether or not
David Abrahams wrote: they come with a test case.
When I say "come with" I mean they should come into our source repository with a test case, which may be supplied by anyone, inlcuding the library maintainer. I don't think we should be just applying "bug fix" patches without being able to confirm that they actually fix bugs.
I don't know how to do that for system specific fixes on platforms Boost isn't testing and I don't have access to. For libraries like Boost.System and Boost.Filesystem I have to take such patches on faith. Of course I inspect them to make sure they appear reasonable and don't affect other platforms. What you are saying is certainly the "right way" most of the time. But it is hard to do for some of the more obscure platforms. --Beman