On 7 janv. 04, at 08:12, Julian Fitzell wrote:

> I dunno - the majority of people are not going to want those tests 
> most of the time.  The only people who really need them are people 
> hacking on the core image itself, not users of it.

Do you think that tests on integers, strings, collections are really 
useless?

>
> I don't feel that strongly, but every time something like this comes 
> up it seems we eventually agree we're trying to *limit* the number of 
> things being pushed out the update stream.  It's only a few clicks to 
> install the tests and it's easily done for those who want them.  Those 
> who don't are never going to run them anyway, so we don't gain 
> anything by forcing them out there.

I disagree,  consider tests as documentation. You do not want a newbie 
to load a test package. It should be there. Tests are cheap in space, 
easy to remove and we can remove these is less that few clicks.
There are so few people taking care of tests that we should make their 
life easy. Because you see if the test would be in the image
then boris would have just been able to publish in three minutes a new 
test. And not have to load the testpackage.....
Now I have to check if this is a method or a new test case....boring 
boring boring.

I spent enough time on that.

Stef

> If we want to make them more accessible, we could add a menu item that 
> gets the newest version of the test package from squeak map and runs 
> it.  That would make it accessible for the cases where we want to say 
> to someone on the list "could you try running the test suite to make 
> sure nothing in your image is hooped".
>
> If some people really want an update stream for the tests, why don't 
> we use the update stream package to create a separate stream for the 
> tests that those who care can track?
>
> Julian
>
>
> Doug Way wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, January 4, 2004, at 02:43 PM, Marcus Denker wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 04.01.2004 um 20:31 schrieb ducasse:
>>>
>>>> Hi andreas
>>>>
>>>> I was looking at your tests. I want them in the image :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm.... I was thinking about test in the image Vs. package.
>>>
>>> What I like aboyut my package is that I can add to it without
>>> funneling all those changesets through the update process...
>>> that's much faster.
>>>
>>> Can't we put the testsuite in the image the way other bigger
>>> things (Celeste, SqueakMap and so on...) are handled?
>> Yeah, we could do this.  This could be an in-image Basic package like 
>> SUnit & SqueakMap.
>> I think it should probably be part of Basic and the alpha update 
>> stream, and not just one of the separated Full packages (like 
>> Celeste, Balloon3D, VMMaker, etc.).  This is a bit of extra effort on 
>> my part to update occasionally in the update stream, but I think a 
>> tests package is important enough to warrant this.
>> - Doug
>
> -- 
> julian at beta4.com
> Beta4 Productions (http://www.beta4.com)
>
>