forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Evrim ULU <ev...@core.gen.tr>
Subject Re: code vs. talk
Date Thu, 18 Nov 2004 13:46:22 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Crossley wrote:
| Dave Brondsema wrote:
| There is a trade-off.
|
| This "patch-then-review" process needs to be qualified.
| Developers need to be sure to provide a clear log message
| to accompany the patch, so that we all know the purpose
| and the consequences. Also add documentation where
| possible. Then, if it is really necessary, we can
| discuss later.

I hate patch-review method. Current Linux-Netfilter project does this
and somebody sends/apllies huge/core patches and attach a post-it like
note like the following: "Lets see what will break?"

Besides, qualified developer definition is a very poor definition. Who
is qualified and who's not is always open to discussion. Besides, it's
not measurable thus not scientific plus, does not contain any
engineering aspect.

IMO, only solution is unit testing. After a patch is applied all unit
tests are run to see what is broken. I have absolutely no experience
with cocoon unit testing so any ideas are welcome. I'm sure some members
have experience related to this topic. Apache has gump system for
unit-tests of sub-projects AFAIK. Maybe we should try to use it since
forrest is built on top of maven (+1).

As a conclusion, i will support any method that can be measured.
Otherwise it'll be subjective and will change from person/developer to
person/developer and i simply don't want forrest community efforts to
degrade in time.

Tnx.
Evrim.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBnKesR2rUfDW+YFIRAljMAJ4+rIr2x7+B8umuW9hir2FVuLtitgCcDjDc
JmH9TS5Wt4iGJkRXfGLpw8I=
=NwTC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mime
View raw message