river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Costers <jonathan.cost...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: ServiceDiscoveryManager test coverage
Date Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:05:07 GMT
OK, looks like we have agreement.
I'll try to at least initiate my proposal later today.
Thanks
Jonathan

2010/9/1 Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message