On Saturday, July 09, 2011, Daren Beattie wrote: > I don't want to go against the grain, so I'll keep unit tests out of the > tree unless someone asks for them. And thanks for pointing out QTestLib--I > didn't come across that when looking at frameworks, and a quick Googling > shows that not only is nobody calling it crap, but it appears to be the > recommend way to test Qt-based code.
Another approach would be to put it in the tree and explain what it's for and what to do with it, and see if anyone finds it useful. I really don't know how I'd expect that to come out. > I'll refrain from adding a layer to the directory structure until I can > make a good case for it. I tend to be overly conservative and set in my ways, and I say no and drag my feet and put my hand up and say "let's think about this" entirely too much. After really thinking about this instead of just spouting off a knee-jerk reaction, I really don't see what my problem was with the suggestion, and I think you should feel free to go ahead and do it. > I just look back at the LilyPondLanguage class > that I added earlier this year and assume it's representative of the > direction I would take more code, given sufficient reason. That would mean > more classes, each with a pretty fine-grained responsibility. But I may > find that it doesn't happen much, or that other coders prefer not to have > separate classes for such things. You don't have to worry too much about other coders, since all the ongoing work on that code has pretty much played out, and it's just sitting there waiting on somebody to come in and begin the fourth generation of home improvements on it. I had lost track of the link between the name and the code, and forgotten that you were the guy who provided support for exporting LilyPond in different human languages. That was good stuff, and it puts all the rest of this discussion into a different perspective for me. You've already proven that you make good design decisions, and leave the code better than you found it. I worry too much. Particularly considering this is a grossly understaffed volunteer project whose core developers haven't committed anything of consequence in the longest time. > As far as branching goes, I'd planned on making good use of a local git > repository to try out different approaches, and only submit patches based > on what I thought turned out best. I wanted to avoid any clutter upstream, > especially since I don't see branches being used very much. However, if > anyone else is going to be working on the LilyPondExport class in the > meantime, then perhaps it would be best to have an upstream branch so we > can at least keep abreast of everyone's work. What do you think? It's highly unlikely that anyone else will be working on this at the same time, so I wouldn't worry about that at all. If you do inspire someone else to jump in, we can sort that out later. -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
