Re: emacs test suite

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Robert Anderson wrote:

> >We use CVS--isn't that suitable?
> 
> It's reasonable, but has some limitations.  For example, I am
> potentially interested in maintaining a set of tests, but you are
> not convinced of the utility of them and so you'd rather not have
> them in your CVS - so you don't give me write access.

We have CVS branches for that; a couple of them already exist for 
specialized features people work on.  So I don't see any problem here.

> If instead I had a branch that I could store locally (this is the
> "distributed" part), I could version control my own work,
> continue to incorporate your changes, and as it became more
> useful, you could at some point decide that you'd like to merge
> my branch into your sources

That's cool, but why do you need the branch to be local?  Why not start a 
branch in the Emacs CVS?  If you agree not to check in changes into the 
trunk (assuming we don't want them on the trunk, about which I'm unsure, 
see below), I don't see any problems granting you write access to the CVS 
tree.  It's Richard's decision, but I don't see why would he refuse.

Moreover, I don't even see why would we request that the changes be on a 
branch.  A test suite by definition is mostly orthogonal to the sources 
being tested.  I expect it to be in a separate directory, with only minor 
influence on the files in other directories (perhaps some simple change 
in some Makefile.in or so).

Therefore, even a branch does not seem to be necessary.

Am I missing something?