source.squeakfoundation.org (was Re: iSqueak)
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Jun 28 21:01:53 UTC 2005
this was what I wanted to know and I will certainly repackage them
>> I understand and I agree that having separated tests is good and
>> avoid dependencies. Now
>> I do not understand the naming conventions. I miss something but I
>> do not know what.
>> Why the tests of Kernel-Chronology are not simply
>> Because MC would put them under Kernel?
>> but we could have a separate package for KernelChronologyTests?
> Because creating fifty packages for each and every category ending
> with "-Test" wasn't TSTTCPW. The simplest thing was to reclassify
> the classes so we have a "Kernel" package and a "KernelTests"
> package, a "Collection" package and a "CollectionTests" package etc.
> Again keep in mind that the goal of this exercise was to *fully*
> packagize the system - and because of this some compromises had to
> be made. If you want to make all of these separate packages, by all
> means, feel free to do so. But that was out of my scope.
> - Andreas
More information about the Packages