On 4/13/2011 7:52 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 06:28:58 +0200
Stefan Behnel<stefan...@behnel.de> wrote:
I think it would help to point out in the PEP that code that fails to touch
the theoretical 100% test coverage bar is not automatically excluded from
integration, but needs solid reasoning, review and testing in the wild in
order to be considered an equivalent alternative implementation.
But then
again, this should actually be required anyway, even for code with an
exceedingly high test coverage.
I'm not sure what kind of "testing in the wild" you refer to. If you
mean that it should have e.g. been published on the Cheeseshop, I don't
think that's an useful requirement for an accelerator module.
The real testing in the wild will come after the accelerator is
released. Is there any easy way for users to avoid the accelerator, to
see if it is the source of a problem, short of editing the import in the
.py file? Test/support appears to jump through some hoops to do so.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
