[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: emacs test suite
From: |
Robert Anderson |
Subject: |
Re: emacs test suite |
Date: |
18 Jan 2003 23:51:01 -0800 |
On Sat, 2003-01-18 at 22:00, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> 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?
Well, I don't "need" it to be - this is only a matter of convenience.
But it would be nice if this didn't even require discussion or Richard
having to make a decision apriori about whether my work is credible
before he has even seen it. If the branch was local, I would just get
to work, and everyone could worry about these decisions later when it
was more than vaporware, saving valuable coordinate effort.
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?
Only that, were the branch local, this discussion would be unnecessary -
I would just start working and only "bother" you guys and take your
valuable time when it became more mission critical, i.e., there was code
suitable for a merge. For the test suite in particular, you are right
that inherent orthogonality makes it less of an issue.
On a more general note, let me lurk for awhile and get a feel for what
kinds of bugs might be easily addressable with test cases before we get
into write access or branching decisions.
Bob