<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Chris Muller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:asqueaker@gmail.com" target="_blank">asqueaker@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I want you to know, several of my packages like Ma-Serialization and<br>
Magma DO separate out a "-Tests" package from the core functionality<br>
-- because they're biggish. For me, it was only when the tests were<br>
so minor in size that I decided I didn't warrant the extra "line item"<br>
in the package list, file-directories, etc.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> I do appreciate your point that an excessive number of fine-grained<br>
> packages would be daunting to manage. I try not to create new<br>
> packages. In this case, it seemed like the natural thing to do.<br>
<br>
</div>I _am_ glad for what you said above. We definitely agree it's a<br>
natural thing to do, if not always the threshold of when we should do<br>
it. Not a big deal for "-Tests" packages.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>> So one can run its tests and know that the GUI-specification is<br>
>> performing correctly, of course! :) Before deploying an image to<br>
>> production is a good time to run tests.<br>
><br>
> :) But of course you don't mean that the _specs_themselves_ should<br>
> depend on TestCase. But if you bundle the thing-under-test together<br>
> with the tests, you can't separate the two.<br>
<br>
</div>This is why I said earlier that stripping was not being given due consideration.<br>
<br>
Shrinking/stripping activities are already a regular part of<br>
Configuration-for-deployment.<br>
<br>
Much less so for configuring a development image. That's the time<br>
when I "want everything" and as few complications as possible to get<br>
there.<br>
<br>
I can relent for this "-Tests" idiom but, mark my words Frank, I'm<br>
watching you! :) If tiny new packages besides "-Tests" start<br>
appearing, we'll be having this conversation again.<br>
<br>
PS -- Since it was for aesthetic reasons, it would be better and more<br>
consistent if it were named "ToolBuilder-Tests" instead of<br>
"ToolBuilderTests".<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, but then Monticello forces you to have as many packages as there are ToolBuilder-Foo thingies, right? That's ok for ToolBuilder, but for Tools it doesn't fly. It forces</div>
<div>Tools-Deployment-Base, Tools-Deployment-Browser, Tools-Deployment-Debugger et al so one can have Tools-Deployment & Tools-Tests. This is better long-term (can pattern e.g. match off Foo-Deployment) but more work up-front than moving Tools-Tests to ToolsTests.</div>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br>best,<div>Eliot</div>
</div></div>