[Cuis] Did we drop PNG support?

[Frank Shearar]

On 20 December 2013 18:15, Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 1:16 PM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>>
>> On every commit, CI runs your entire test suite. When things fail, you
>> immediately know which commit broke the test, which gives you much
>> less code (hopefully) to analyse, to find the breakage. CI is all
>> about closing the feedback loop.
>>
>> Further, in GitHub's case, you can use Travis CI to handle the CI
>> part. Because the test suite runs against every commit, a pull request
>> will be validated (or not), and Travis CI can update the pull
>> request's commit status. This gives you, the reviewer of the pull
>> request, a green/red light, telling you that the PR doesn't break
>> anything.
>>
>> (For the seriously pedantic, the thing you _really_ want is to merge
>> the PR into the master and run the test suite on that. _That_ green
>> light should inform the commit status of the PR. Alas, no one actually
>> does that.)
>>
>> frank
>
>
> But all this assumes that:
> a) Tests will catch every possible bug
> b) Immediately after a test starts failing, someone will review the code

No? Well, I don't assume that. The point is that when someone issues a
pull request against your codebase, _something/one_ needs to run the
tests. Why would you want to _have_ to do that manually, when a
machine can do it for you?

Tests should catch every _found_ bug. As in: if you find a bug, you
write a test that demonstrates the bug. Then you fix the bug.

If I cared about catching _every possible_ bug, I'd program in Coq or ATS.

> And people starts being less careful about quality, believing that the CI
> server can compensate for it.

I would far rather have tests, CI, code coverage tools than not :)
_My_ experience clearly doesn't match with yours.

> (Do I need to say names?)

If you mean _me_, you're mistaken. But tests that are not run might as
well not exist.

frank