update stream policy

ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sun Jan 18 18:08:06 UTC 2004

On 18 janv. 04, at 17:26, Ned Konz wrote:

> On Sunday 18 January 2004 7:27 am, ducasse wrote:
>> By the way the starting point was about having Tests (the active and
>> always synchronised
>> documentation) close to the code they document in the image for the
>> image. For the package
>> each maintainer has to care of the tests related to his stuff.
> But "close to the code" doesn't have to mean "shipped as part of the
> distribution image itself". We have a number of mechanisms for making 
> content
> (including tests) available; I don't think that released images 
> themselves
> need to contain tests.

hi ned

I disagree,
What people are doing with Squeak if they do not program. Ok may etoy.
but look at the recent question about insert:before:

A person reported a bug, it was archived, reviewed, then closed because
simply the protocol was not clear. Imagine tests as documentation.
With that documentation we would limit problem like that. For me
when we will have a kernel with nothing and only load script then sure 
tests should be packaged
now we do not have that. and we are spending time on that. For example, 
some approved items
are pending because they contain tests. So does it mean that marcus or 
I should spend
***OUR*** time separating tests and code then publish a new 
package....Is it what you imply?
If this is the case do count on me. As you noticed I pay attention that 
what you are doing get reviewed really fast
but my time is not extensible and I'm not payed for that nor gain money 
out of it.

> After all, only a small part of the Squeak community is programmers.

Really? what else people are doing? squeakland. For squeak land image 
are prepared so
removing tests is nothing.

If people prefer that we spend time on separating tests and publishing 
them on remote servers
and update web page and url instaed of harvesting new stuff say it 
clearly. But in that case you will
have to find another harvester.


> I do think that it may make sense to have tests available in alpha 
> images
> because (presumably) most of the users of alpha images will be 
> programmers.
> SM2 will allow annotation streams for packages; these can (and should) 
> contain
> resources like tests, as well as updates to the packages and tests
> themselves.
> And bug reports, and user experiences, and ...

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list