Re: Regtest changes phase 1 (issue 6454121)

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:17:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Absolutely appreciate this comment.  However, the theory of the
> > regtests is that by looking at the description and the image, you can
> > tell whether the regtest has been passed.  No-one who looked at this
> > regtest could do that. With the changes proposed, you can.   The
> > question is - do you need to inspect the code, or the image and
> > description, to tell whether the regtest has been passed?
> 
> Perhaps instead of code comments and/or descriptions we should employ
> footnotes to point out the details of the test coverage?  That would
> seem like the most directly accessible variant.

Add footnotes to every regtest would be a huge undertaking, and it
would unnecessarily tie basic tests to the relatively new footnote
code.  A regtest should be simple enough that 1-3 sentences in the
description should be enough to understand what to look for.

- Graham