river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: ServiceDiscoveryManager test coverage
Date Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:28:39 GMT
Peter Firmstone wrote:
> Well I must say the recent participation is very encouraging, this 
> project had a record number of emails to the development mailing list 
> last month, but I don't come from a Programming background, I'm not an 
> expert and don't have any merging experience.

Regardless of whether you have formal programming education, you seem to 
me to be a very talented and capable programmer. Organization of complex 
multi-person software projects is a different subject.

Checking everything directly into the trunk works well on a reasonably 
small single person project, but I do not think it is a good plan for 
River with multiple active developers.

> Therefore in this case I'd prefer to observe rather than vote for any 
> particular methodology or risk letting my own wants or ego stand in the 
> way of what River needs, which is increasing participation and innovation.
> 
> I have no objections to you reverting the changes.

For what it is worth, I strongly agree with the plan Jonathan proposes.

I would like to get ASAP to a head trunk revision that runs all known 
tests, then spawn off at least one branch for your work, possibly more 
than one if it splits into separate threads that you want to push in 
parallel, and a NewTaskManager branch with a solid basis. I hope 
Jonathan will continue the excellent work he is doing on getting the 
tests organized and running regularly.

Like you, I need to learn branching and merging in SVN. I've done it in 
other revision control systems, and the general idea is hand merging 
only for those files that have been modified since your branch was 
spawned off.

Perhaps someone can recommend a tutorial that covers SVN the way it is 
used in Apache?

Also, maybe we should do some branching and merging in the skunk area to 
build confidence that we can do it right, and familiarity with what 
happens during a merge.

> I expect that you'll continue participating and perhaps blaze the trail 
> as leading developers, so that I can watch and learn, I'm interested to 
> see what you have in mind.
> 
> River needs people willing to do the leg work necessary to succeed.

Agreed.

> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Peter.
> 
> Jonathan Costers wrote:
>> I have to agree with Sim here ...
>>
>> I'd say (if it were entirely up to me):
>> 1. backout the changes
>> 2. make sure the current QA tests run
>> 3. add categories servicediscovery,discoveryservice,io and security to 
>> the
>> QA test categories to run by Hudson, one by one
>> 4. make sure these QA tests run as well
>> 5. piece by piece, restore the changes and keep an eye on any tests 
>> failing.
>> In parallel, keep validating and adding more QA test categories.
>>
>> This would allow us to work in a more structured manner, and to 
>> perform peer
>> reviews on bite size changes.
>> We have to better organize ourselves, considering the limited 
>> resources we
>> have.
>>
>> To summarize:
>> - the changes to RemoteEvent etc. caused many discovery related tests to
>> fail
>> - the changes to ClassLoading caused some classloading / io related 
>> tests to
>> fail
>> - the changes to DynamicPolicyProvider caused security (and other) 
>> tests to
>> fail
>>
>> And that's what I found after going through it very quickly and 
>> backing out
>> some obvious things.
>> These actually look more like experiments than actual tested changes.
>> IMO, this kind of experimentation should probably be done in a skunk 
>> branch,
>> not the trunk.
>>
>> If for any reason, my understanding is incorrect, and backing out is 
>> not an
>> option, then I would suggest to at least create a JIRA issue for each 
>> of the
>> above topics.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jonathan
>>
>> 2010/9/1 Peter Firmstone <jini@zeus.net.au>
>>
>>  
>>> Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> On 09/01/2010 01:16 AM, Jonathan Costers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      
>>>>> Similarly, having backed out the RemoteEvent changes, and running the
>>>>> "discoveryservice" category:
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>> It looks to me, that the code in the trunk was not completely ready.
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> It looks that way.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Would it be a good idea to revert the changes until the unit tests run
>>>    
>>>> again, and build a branch in svn to continue the work?
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> Let me get my head around understanding the failures first before we
>>> revert.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>>> If a committer (with svn access) needs help, i can offer some 
>>>> assistance.
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> Thanks ;) much appreciated.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Gr. Sim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>
>>   
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message