From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bastien <bzg@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fixed bug in org-entry-get-with-inheritance
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:35:00 +0100
Message-ID: <87mwgopnrf.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>
References: <lfbote$vv9$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<87bnx9qbcq.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>	<87vbvcptqt.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
	<87ob14d4o7.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>	<87r460pr8d.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
	<87ha6wd3hg.fsf@bzg.ath.cx>	<87mwgoppvf.fsf@Rainer.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60724)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bounce+7f29f6.16488-emacs-orgmode=gnu.org@kickhub.com>)
	id 1WPeFd-0002ws-NO
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:35:18 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bounce+7f29f6.16488-emacs-orgmode=gnu.org@kickhub.com>)
	id 1WPeFY-0003fP-If
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:35:13 -0400
Received: from rs249.mailgun.us ([209.61.151.249]:34291)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <bounce+7f29f6.16488-emacs-orgmode=gnu.org@kickhub.com>)
	id 1WPeFY-0003cD-EG
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:35:08 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87mwgoppvf.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of
	"Mon,	17 Mar 2014 20:49:24 +0100")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>
Cc: ilya <ilya_shl@alum.mit.edu>, emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> writes:

>> I meant: can you tell me how the tests fail?
>
> They don't produce the result they are supposed to produce.

Thanks for this explanation.

>> I'm interested in the answer.
>
> make BTEST_RE='\\(header-arg-defaults\\|property-accumulation\\)'
> test-dirty

Thanks!

>>>> If the patch is good and the tests are outdated, I'd rather
>>>> fix the tests than revert the patch to re-revert it again.
>>>
>>> No, the patch is bad, otherwise it wouldn't break the tests.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't buy this.
>
> I'm not selling anything.

What I meant is this: broken tests are not a sufficient reason to
revert a commit.  You need to show the commit is wrong and the tests
are not outdated.

In this case, I made the error of reproduce Ilya's solution,
not Ilya's problem, so I wrong assumed his patch was the problem
to his problem.

Ilya: from the maint and master branch, I get "bbb" as a result
for the example you placed in your commit message.  Do you have
"aaa" as a result with Org from maint or master?  If so, can you
provide a recipe?

Thanks,

-- 
 Bastien