Re: [dev] Specification Process Possibilities ... - unit testing

Michael Meeks wrote: [...] Great - so, what pieces of code have functioning unit tests ? whenever I hack on a module I like to try and find these tests, I poke in 'workben' and I see very frequently stale/un-buildable/un-runable code, then I poke in qa/ and eg. in configmgr/qa/unoapi I

Re: [dev] An attempt of a summary: specification process possibilities

Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: step1 - idea: mandatory ;-) step2 - create iTeam: optional at this point in time as we can't expect it for all community work step3 - design/review/implementation cycles: indispensable :-) step4 - create iTeam if not done in step2: possible to be done

Re: [dev] Specification Process Possibilities ... - unit testing

Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Certainly, the final solution would run these tests during regular builds, just want to keep some work for later ... ;-) Hi Kay, yes, definitely. What about a staged approach to that: first include all unit tests in a regular build,

Re: [dev] Specification Process Possibilities ... - unit testing

Hi Thorsten, Thorsten Behrens wrote: Kay Ramme - Sun Germany - Hamburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Certainly, the final solution would run these tests during regular builds, just want to keep some work for later ... ;-) Hi Kay, yes, definitely. What about a staged approach to that: first

Re: [dev] An attempt of a summary: specification process possibilities

Michael Meeks wrote: Hi Mathias, On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 19:40 +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: I don't see our discussion related to the way something is implemented, so this splitting IMHO is an implicit one. So my idea was (and still is): So - the problem is I discern ~no difference at

Re: [dev] Built and now what ?

Jim Watson wrote: Enno, the original question (I may have mis-read) I thought was after building, how can it be run? Now i see it is more about solver, about which I have no experience. I will make some very brief comments below, and reply more fully later today. maybe someone else will

[dev] Open Office build doesn't create the package !!

I have been trying to compile and install Open Office 2.0.3 on BLFS system using gcc-4.1.1. The first time I tried it balked out on epm. As I have epm installed, open office setup tried to package it with epm and epm complained about the package name having characters other than letters and

Re: [dev] Open Office build doesn't create the package !!

On 09/11/2006, at 8:32 AM, Kevin Williams wrote: I cleaned up the source tree and recompiled by specifying --disable- epm and compiled it with in tree mozilla. It compiled successfully. Now, when I want to installit, I see that there's no directory named OpenOffice under

Re: [dev] Open Office build doesn't create the package !!

Thanks Jim, from the bottom of my heart. It was really helpful. I did exaclty as you instructed and this time it did create the package under unxlngi6.pro. I find the directory structire as follows: instsetoo_native | unxlngi6.pro | [bin class inc lib misc obj OpenOffice

Re: [dev] Open Office build doesn't create the package !!

On 09/11/2006, at 2:40 PM, Kevin Williams wrote: The directory install contains three directories namely: en-US, en-US_download and log. The directory en-US/linux-2.6-intel contains a tar.gz file and other readme files along with install and remove scripts. the tar.gz should be 100mb?

[dev] Development at a Glance - Weekly Update CW45

Hi, I would like to give you a regular weekly update on what is hot in our development teams to make our work more transparent to all. Here is my weekly update for calendar week (CW) 45: CW45 http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/development_at_a_glance_- Some older updates: CW44

[dev] cancel [EMAIL PROTECTED]

This message was cancelled from within Mozilla. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]