[ANN]Draft rough plan for 3.6!
marcus at ira.uka.de
Wed Apr 16 07:31:32 UTC 2003
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:09:03PM -0400, Doug Way wrote:
> I just wanted to add that this scheme of having a test package for each
> removed "Squeak official" package sounds like an excellent idea. Probably
> eventually (in a future version of SqueakMap) there would be a special link
> from a package to its test package, or the test package would be a dependent,
> or something similar. But for now, a regular extra package sounds great.
> Mmm, would we want to make the original package maintainer also be the
> maintainer of the test package? If possible, that might be best, even if you
> end up writing some of the initial test packages.
I'd actually prefer if the package maintainers would come up with tests
1) it's really very helpfull for doing the "maintainer" work: a maintainer
has to do some kind of testrun by hand anyway, why not automate it?
2) It's simple. But it's work (and pretty boring, too). So I can do the
simple first packages even for the removals I don't maintain,
but I won't maintain those in the future. Maintaining a test-packge is
really not much work for the maintainer of the package, but it would
be a lot of work for a third person (esp. if this person doesn't normally
use the package)
3) Real test need *real* refactorings. Only the maintainer might have enough
energy to do this...
Marcus Denker marcus at ira.uka.de -- Squeak! http://squeak.de
More information about the Squeak-dev