On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 22:41:16 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: >>> Ganesh: elaborating on your offer. If you could provide us with an >>> example or prototype of how the test suite could be generalised and >>> still be useful we'd be able to wrap this up fairly quickly. For >>> example, could we move the current hashed-storage suite into the >>> darcs-specific package and then have some fairly simple sanity checks >>> for hashed-storage proper?
> Now done: > http://darcs.vm.spiny.org.uk/~ganesh/gsoc-review-2009/ganesh-hack/hashed-storage/ Thanks, Ganesh! So Petr, I'm just trying to help nudge this closer to completion by talking at it some more :-). This prototype by Ganesh seems to show how hashed-storage could still be usefully tested without Storage.Hashed.Darcs being baked in. If this was fleshed out properly, would you agree that this is an adequate solution to the test suite problem? This is just a more concrete version of my question from earlier in the thread: could you live with the compromise solution [Storage.Hashed.Darcs being part of the darcs project, but as a standalone library] if the test suite problem were resolved? -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpztLIuhDZoy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
