On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Robert Kern gmail.com> writes:
> [clip]
>> Seems like more trouble than it's worth to automate. We don't want
>> just anyone with a Github account to add arbitrary code to our test
>> suites, do we? The idea of an "expected failure" test s
Robert Kern gmail.com> writes:
[clip]
> Seems like more trouble than it's worth to automate. We don't want
> just anyone with a Github account to add arbitrary code to our test
> suites, do we? The idea of an "expected failure" test suite is a good
> one, but it seems to me that it could be mainta
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> Charles R Harris gmail.com> writes:
>> After 6 days of trudging through the numpy issues and
>> finally passing the half way point, I'm wondering if we
>> can set up so that new defects get a small test that can
>> be parsed out and run pe
Charles R Harris gmail.com> writes:
> After 6 days of trudging through the numpy issues and
> finally passing the half way point, I'm wondering if we
> can set up so that new defects get a small test that can
> be parsed out and run periodically to mark issues that might
> be fixed. I expect it ca
After 6 days of trudging through the numpy issues and finally passing the
half way point, I'm wondering if we can set up so that new defects get a
small test that can be parsed out and run periodically to mark issues that
might be fixed. I expect it can be done, but might be more trouble than it
is
