From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2011-09-09T09:37:41+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:39393] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/...

Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:39386] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/..."
    on Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:07:28 +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@headius.com> writes:

|Matz: Is it official policy that all feature changes in Ruby must be
|accompanied by a test or spec? If not, why not?

In general, all feature changes should be accompanied by tests.

|If so, why aren't they
|going into a non-MRI-specific test suite?

Because some feature changes are platform specific.

|Shouldn't ruby-core help maintain an implementation-agnostic Ruby
|behavioral test suite? If so, why isn't that happening, and why
|couldn't it be RubySpec? If not, why not?

The answer depends on the definition of ruby-core.  If ruby-core
refers the core CRuby committers, I don't want make their burden
heavier.  If ruby-core means Ruby developer community as a whole, I
agree they should help maintain an implementation-agnostic Ruby
behavioral test suite.  The reason behind the current problem is
simply lack of contributors.  We need more contributors on both core
and spec.

							matz.