Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 40564 invoked from network); 17 May 2007 07:51:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 May 2007 07:51:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 66219 invoked by uid 500); 17 May 2007 07:51:44 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 66180 invoked by uid 500); 17 May 2007 07:51:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 66169 invoked by uid 99); 17 May 2007 07:51:44 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2007 00:51:44 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [194.109.24.22] (HELO smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl) (194.109.24.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 May 2007 00:51:36 -0700 Received: from k8l.lan (porta.xs4all.nl [80.127.24.69]) by smtp-vbr2.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4H7pEuA044834 for ; Thu, 17 May 2007 09:51:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from paul.elschot@xs4all.nl) From: Paul Elschot To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Tests, Contribs, and Releases Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:51:14 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <474AF50D-B148-4984-8F41-FBD5DFF06A8E@apache.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705170951.14442.paul.elschot@xs4all.nl> X-Virus-Scanned: by XS4ALL Virus Scanner X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thursday 17 May 2007 09:10, Chris Hostetter wrote: ... > It could be argued that contribs are not important enough for contrib test > failures to result in a nightly build failing (I have no strong opinion > about this). It could also be argued that while it's good to run test > against the "core" on a regular basis (ie: in the nightly), test failures > should not in and of themselves block a release -- so the ReleaseTodo > doesn't need to include any mention of running tests (I would argue > against this position very strongly) > I'd rather have a few tests too many, which means that I would prefer to have the contribs tested by default, and at least before a new release. Contribs depend on the core, and their tests might also indicate a problem in the core, even though that is not their intention. When a contrib fails and is not fixed, that might be a good reason to remove it from the distribution. With such a policy the present contribs would also stay up to date, provided their tests are good enough. Thinking about it a bit more, there is a process to add contribs, but there is not really a process to remove them. The policy of removing a contrib before a release when its unit tests fail could make a nice fit for that. Regards, Paul Elschot --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org