[Zope-Coders] Re: July Bug Day Roundup

[Chris Withers]

Tres Seaver wrote:

> I would rather address the issue with "nagmail":  each supporter would 
> get a periodic (weekly, likely, for the main Zope collector) e-mail 
> summarizing the issues to which they are assigned.

I'm all for both. nagmail is great for annoying^wreminding the 
supporter, but it doesn't bring issues back into the 
pool-that-need-to-be-dealt-with (I believe "Pending" is the agreed term 
for this now) so other people can deal with them once the supporter has 
changed their email address or learned how to filter out the nagmail ;-)
(FWIW, I think every single issue that had been dumped in "Deferred" was 
assigned to someone who had since changed their email address...)

> Nope.  *Any* change could be expected to have one or more tests which 
> demonstrate either that:
> 
>  - the bug existed before before the fix (e.g., the test fails without
>    the fix), but no longer exists after (the test passes).
> 
>  - the new feature works.

Okay, but big areas where there are no tests may see less attention as a 
result. I know this is a horrible chicken and egg situation :-S

> Writing more tests for the unit being changed qualifies as a "work of 
> supererogation."

And in english? ;-)

> There are occoasionally areas (medusa's guts, for one) 
> which are so gnarly that nobody can figure out how to write tests for 
> that.  If you plan to resolve an issue without adding test, and want to 
> plead "gnarliness" as an excuse, expect to defend the choice. ;)

Hehe, okay, that sounds fair enough :-)

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk