This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Mauve project.
Re: Recognizing expected failures in Mauve
- To: Brian Jones <cbj at gnu dot org>
- Subject: Re: Recognizing expected failures in Mauve
- From: Warren Levy <warrenl at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:27:35 -0800 (PST)
- cc: mauve-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
On 7 Feb 2001, Brian Jones wrote:
> Warren Levy <email@example.com> writes:
> > UNXPASS (IMO the use of XPASS here would be misleading).
> Why is XPASS misleading and XFAIL not?
XFAIL is expected fail; I needed a tag for *un*expected PASS. IMO, XPASS
would imply expected pass.
Since some Mauve users might be reliant on the current PASS tag, I ruled
out changing that to XPASS (which would have freed up PASS to mean
unexpected pass). Doing this would possibly have messed up existing
frameworks, something I wanted to avoid.