On Jul 20, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Brett Cannon wrote:

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 11:48, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 7/20/2011 12:25 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Le 20/07/2011 17:58, Éric Araujo a écrit :
Do we have a policy of not adding new test files to stable branches?
New logging tests failed during some weeks. If we add new tests, we may
also break some stable buildbots. I don't think that we need to add
these new tests to a stable version.

When bugs are fixed in stable branches, they are usually accompanied by tests that fail without the bugfix. I have understood the policy to be that new tests go into stable branches. Failure indicates a bug in either the not-really-so-stable branch or the test. In the latter case, remove the test everywhere until fixed. In the former case, either fix the bug in the stable branch immediately or open an issue and attach the test code (skipping the test needed stage) or just disable it and note on the issue that a fix patch should re-enable. The logging tests may have been exceptional some way

Right, but Eric is asking about new tests that do nothing more than improve test coverage, not exercise a fix for a bug.

I say don't add new tests for the sake of coverage or adding new tests to stable branches. Tests for bugfixes are practically required.

I concur with Brett.   Nothing good will come from backporting tests that aren't aimed at a specific bugfix.