From: Philip Newton Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 21:24:00 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tests are good X-Git-Url: http://git.shadowcat.co.uk/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=9d077eaaaaf5479060d3eabcfb6d60f086ba857a;p=p5sagit%2Fp5-mst-13.2.git Re: [PATCH] Tests are good Message-ID: <4c000us22s27871hrsqnvjmtnvtd4r85u1@4ax.com> p4raw-id: //depot/perl@13245 --- diff --git a/pod/perlhack.pod b/pod/perlhack.pod index 371b6b5..1f69c96 100644 --- a/pod/perlhack.pod +++ b/pod/perlhack.pod @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ must include regression tests to verify that everything works as expected. Without tests provided by the original author, how can anyone else changing perl in the future be sure that they haven't unwittingly broken the behaviour the patch implements? And without tests, how can the patch's author be -confident that his/her hard work put into the patch won't be accidently +confident that his/her hard work put into the patch won't be accidentally thrown away by someone in the future? =item Is there enough documentation?