[ruby-core:39395] Re: RubySpec vs CRuby's test/...

2011/9/9 Charles Oliver Nutter <[e-mail]>:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Matz: Is it official policy that all feature changes in Ruby must be
>> accompanied by a test or spec? If not, why not? If so, why aren't they
>> going into a non-MRI-specific test suite?
>>
>> 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?
>
> I'm going to try to dial back the rhetoric a bit and lay out the
> facts. Jump in where I go astray.
>
> THE NEED:
>
> * There must be a test suite all Ruby implementations can use to
> confirm that they are compatible with "Ruby" the
> language/core/libraries
>
> * This suite must not be specific to any one implementation, and
> should only include tests for features considered "standard" Ruby
> (i.e. not implementation-specific).
>
> * This test suite would ideally support running a subset of tests if
> some are known to fail. This is necessary to maintain a watermark on
> partial or in-progress implementations.
>
> * All Ruby features should have a complete set of tests in this suite.
>
> * All Ruby feature changes should be accompanied by a set of tests or
> changes to tests in this suite.
>
> How do we get there?

Thank your for summarize your needs.
Yeah, they are your needs.

In short, we just think they are not worth our cost.
Until you can show our merit, you should watch test/ and copy to RubySpec.

--=20
NARUSE, Yui =A0<[e-mail]>