harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Unit testing revisited
Date Mon, 27 Mar 2006 09:37:06 GMT

Leo Simons wrote:
> Gentlemen!
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote:
>> On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote:
>>> On 3/27/06, mr C wrote:
>>> [SNIP]
>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>> On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [SNIP]
>>> Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP]
>> Now let me support [SNIP].
> The ASF front page says
>   (...) "The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative, consensus
>   based development process, " (...)
> That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
> "How should we organize our tests?" has now been the subject of debate for
> *months* around here, and every now and then much of the same discussion is
> rehashed.

And we're making progress.  IMO, it really helped my thinking to 
distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec 
tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the whole 
o.a.h.test.* issue.

I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where 
java.util.HashMapTest fits.

I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.  Now, 
I see clearly.

> I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on (such as,
> "we don't know, but we can find out", or "we have different ideas on that,
> but there's room for both", or "this way of doing things is not the best one
> but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work anyway")
> than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of disagreements.
> Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that "apache projects are
> characterized by a *productive* development process". Its just my feeling that
> for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive.

You don't think we're making progress through these discussions?

> Think about it. Is your time better spent convincing lots of other people to do
> their testing differently, or is it better spent writing better tests?

The issue isn't about convincing someone to do it differently, but 
understanding the full scope of problems, that we need to embrace both 
approaches, because they are apples and oranges, and we need both apples 
and oranges.  They aren't exclusionary.


View raw message