Testing/Working on PyUNO?

[Kevin Hunter Kesling]

I'm sorry to have ignited a discussion for which I wasn't looking.  I 
clearly don't have the authority to weigh in given my (lack of) 
meritocratic wealth in the LibO community, so let me keep this simple: 
I'm truly just trying to find an agreeable avenue for hacking on LibO 
given my use cases and time.

In the hopes that some of this discussion is fueled by a 
misunderstanding of my intentions, let me apologize below:

At 11:19am -0500 Wed, 19 Feb 2014, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 16:51 +0100, Bjoern Michaelsen wrote:
>> Its still better than a bug without a reproduction scenario. So
>> consider a failed Python test a mere "bug with a good reproduction
>> scenario" for now.
>
> But that's not what we are talking about here. Kevin insists to
> write Python test to test core functionality, which is already
> covered in core test.

Gosh, I'm sorry that's how I came across.  As I said over IRC, I 
recognize "that I don't get it.  I'm trying to."  I patently do _not_ 
insist on anything in this area, as I recognize I'm not a maintainer, 
nor do I have the requisite internal knowledge of LibO/Calc.  I am, 
however, trying to find a way to strengthen what I perceive to be an 
area of weakness for LibO, and one that has potential for my use cases. 
  Namely, Python bindings to Calc.  Perhaps there's no fit here right 
now, and that's okay, too.

Clearly, were I to engage here, I'd like to not step on your (or 
anyone's) development toes.

Cheers,

Kevin