harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexey Varlamov" <alexey.v.varla...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [testing] test exclude list: can't we have incremental exclusions?
Date Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:18:16 GMT
26.11.06, Geir Magnusson Jr.<geir@pobox.com> написал(а):
>
>
> Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> > 24.11.06, Geir Magnusson Jr.<geir@pobox.com> написал(а):
> >>
> >>
> >> Alexey Varlamov wrote:
> >> > Geir,
> >> > This was a bit emotional maybe... Sure, any way it will be is not
> >> > lethal, and I do not mind it too much.
> >>
> >> What, the veto?  I didn't take it that way :)  My point was that when
> >> someone puts up a "-1", it really gets people's attention as a strong
> >> position.
> >>
> >> > My point is if you modify "official" x-list you most certainly won't
> >> > lose it off track, while local svn-ignored file have a good chance to
> >> > hang around for a while. OTOH, is there any difference which file to
> >> > edit? I suppose no, hence this is almost useless in my POV.
> >>
> >> I agree you won't lose it, but when it's in a file that isn't meant for
> >> purely personal use then you have problems in being sure not to commit
> >> it, having to deal with merge conflicts, etc.
> >>
> >> I think about it in the same spirit of the drlvm.properties.example -
> >> people copy to an un-svn-ed local copy for local config.  Excluding
> >> tests while you are working on something is that kind of thing.
>
> > Nope - drlvm.properties fixes stable state of things, you set it and
> > forget it; most merging conflicts are just bothering fuss.
>
> No - there is no merging conflict for drlvm.properties, as it's not in
> SVN.  And you can do wacky things with drlvm.properties - like point to
> a modified classlib.
>
> > Excluding tests should be momentary and ideally not happening at all,
> > so some minor inconveniences may be paying here. And even merging
> > conflict should justly draw your attention - maybe your modification
> > is not that local.
>
> I think that we can't legislate this - if people need them, they'll use
> it or find a way around it, like explicitly excluding tests, and if they
> don't, they won't.
>
> IOW, it's a convenience for those that need it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > If you really want it, I've withdrawn my veto.
> >>
> >> No :)  I'd like to come to consensus.  You may even convince me it's not
> >> a good idea.
> >>
> >> I think that maybe one solution that may address your concerns would be
> >> to actually put the file under SVN!  Then
> >>
> >> a) you'll notice when there's something in it - the state of the file in
> >> SVN should always be empty
> >>
> >> b) If you forget and commit, someone can flag it.
> >
> > This would also solve that problem with non-existing file.
> > But, now this adds even less value - the only difference from
> > mainstream x-lists is somewhat lesser chance for conflicts :).
>

 > And therefore no harm right?  So I'm not going to waste time trying to
 > convince you of the value if you can't see it.  But have we come to
 > agreement that there's no real danger?
Yes, if it is not svn-ignored.

>
> geir
>
>
Mime
View raw message