RC readiness, not

[Jos van den Oever]

On 07/14/2012 11:53 PM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, 13. Juli 2012, 19:07:21 schrieb Thorsten Zachmann:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Friday 13 July 2012 16:11:24 Cyrille Berger Skott wrote:
>>> Hum, the question that needs to be answered at this point is: is calligra
>>> 2.5 worse or better than calligra 2.4.3. If it is better (ie no
>>> regressions, more bug fixes more features) then it should be released to
>>> replace 2.4.3. However if it is worse (ie regressions), then it should be
>>> delayed.
>>
>> 2.5 is much better then 2.4.3 and has quite some improvements. And I agree
>> that we should release 2.5 as long as there are no regressions comapred to
>> 2.5.
>
> Okay, reasonable.
> Butbutbut... :) ... given the few ODF calligratests which are still failing,
> wouldn't it be great if the release would be one where finally no tests are
> failing? You/we are so close :)
>
> What are tests worth if everyone is okay with some of them failing? Why does
> Jos(?) maintain that server at all? Would it not be a good feeling if the fail
> count is at 0? So one knows she/he can rely on the libs used?
>
> If everyone could join the efforts, the count of failing ODF calligratests (33
> for master, says TeamCity server) and the tests (16 for master, says TeamCity
> server) should be pushed to 0 in a few weeks, no?
>
> And blocking the release on this should also help a little bit with motivation
> to switch from hacking exciting new features to making/keeping the foundation
> relyable ;)

Getting to 0 fails on the unit tests is most important. If unit tests 
are failing forever then people will see unit tests as not important and 
depressing.

The unit tests should be seen as just as bad as a failed compilation. 
They indicate that there is something wrong with the code. Something 
that is so important that you wrote a test for it.

It may be that some tests are outdated, but then they should be updated 
or removed.

Cheers,
Jos