Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:51:46PM +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > And Marcus - 
> > * Even in the failures we see here, we see a huge difference in
> > importance between tests. ClassBuilder and AtomMorph do not have the
> > same importance. What criteria should apply? how "Core" the tested
> > functionality is, whether we are talking about enhanced documentation or
> > newly fubared functionality (the first would obviously not stop a
> > release..). Any ideas on how to order the test suites to reflect this?
> > 
> Should be possible somehow... by building the TestSuits by hand, and
> having the testserver run those... 
I thought of something more like having several test packages, where one
is for version acceptance tests (breakage in which is critical), and
extra tests (to which people can add stuff that isn't that critical). I
guess it doesn't matter much whether this knowledge is in test suites or
in packages.

> What I was allready planning to do was to set up some conventions for
> letting the tests print some comment of the status. e.g. lots of
> the bugs allready have FIXes that just havn't been harvested yet.
How can you link between a test and it's status?

Daniel