Should SUnit be part of Basic? (was Re: Against package removal
before packages work correctly)
Doug Way
dway at riskmetrics.com
Mon Jun 30 18:23:55 UTC 2003
goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>[SNIP]
>
>
>>>Is SUnit an essential development tool? I would say yes... we are
>>>trying to encourage folks to include tests with fixes, and requiring
>>>test packages for Squeak-official packages.
>>>
>>>
>>If BASIC means tools essential for development then SUnit should be in.
>>(but we should be able to remove it easily because new versions of
>>Sunit are coming :).
>>
>>
>
>Since it is still a package that is per definition. The only things we
>are still adding as updates are fixes to stuff not yet in packages and
>enhancements to stuff not yet in packages. We would never think of
>adding a "packages" as an update.
>
>Anyway, I agree with Doug.
>
>
Probably what we should do is make it like the SqueakMap/SAR/etc
updates. The current version of SUnit would be included as an update,
but it would also be registered as a loaded SM package. (So that it
would show up in your list of installed packages in the SMLoader, and
you could upgrade to newer versions via SM, etc.)
- Doug Way
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|