Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz wrote:
> On Do, 2008-07-17 at 17:33 +0300, Andrey Hristov wrote:
>> Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz wrote:
>>> On Do, 2008-07-17 at 15:51 +0200, Vladislav Vaintroub wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Hakan Kuecuekyilmaz [mailto:hakan@stripped]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:44 PM
>>>>> To: Vladislav Vaintroub
>>>>> Cc: commits@stripped
>>>>> Subject: RE: bzr commit into mysql-6.0-falcon branch (hakan:2750)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Do, 2008-07-17 at 14:37 +0200, Vladislav Vaintroub wrote:
>>>>>> Why 't1' ? Is 't' not good enough?
>>>>> t1 is standard name for test tables like t1, t2, t3, t4, ..., tn
>>>> Please send the link to standardization committee page:)
>>> It is documented here
>>> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysqltest/en/writing-tests-naming-conventions.html
>> sometimes the documentation is outdated and what the devs do is always
>> one-step ahead.
>> If you can explain me why sporadic failure will increase if table names
>> are unique? Because things are broken now and it will surface when you
>> do it the new way?
>
> Sorry, I can't follow you here. How things should be broken when all
> existing tests are meant to have t1, t2, t3, ..., tn as table names?
>
> Because you will not detect side effects in new tests, if you use unique
> table names. But at one point those side effects will kick back in.
> Hence my example with IE rendering complete broken HTML into something
> and giving the web-developer the illusion of something correct.
your HTML is already broken, it's time to fix it or you will have the
fate of IE.
>
> Cheers und Küsschen
>
> Hakan
Andrey
