Of course there are tests, but it's unlikely people will test a feature if they have to look at unit tests to understand what it does.
2016-03-13 18:18 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Laforge <[email protected]>: > Aren't there any unit tests to point people to? > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Cédric Champeau < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> The problem is how to get feedback if the feature is not documented? >> >> 2016-03-13 18:13 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Laforge <[email protected]>: >> >>> For a beta, I think it can be okay, but for the final release of 2.5, >>> documentation will be of course mandatory, and we can't release it without >>> that documentation. As I often say, a feature which is not documented >>> doesn't exist! >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Shil Sinha <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it's a bit of a problem, still, when it's really that >>>>> particular feature which is in beta, and that we'll want users to test. >>>>> Without knowing it's there and how to use it it's going to be hard to have >>>>> feedback. >>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed, it would be strange to not have any documentation for the focal >>>> point of a release. Are there any external references which we could direct >>>> users to? Not from within the repo itself, but when promoting the release >>>> elsewhere e.g. Twitter. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Cédric Champeau < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> So does everyone agree that we should release the beta even if it's >>>>> missing docs for macros? I think it's a bit of a problem, still, when it's >>>>> really that particular feature which is in beta, and that we'll want users >>>>> to test. Without knowing it's there and how to use it it's going to be >>>>> hard >>>>> to have feedback. >>>>> >>>>> 2016-03-13 0:56 GMT+01:00 Suderman Keith <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 12, 2016, at 12:17 PM, Guillaume Laforge <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's go with mushroom, for a change :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:32 PM, Cédric Champeau < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2016-03-12 0:05 GMT+01:00 Nicholas Grealy <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks like it's just you and me, Pascal! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just some questions for the broader dev community: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Who can perform the release? - Cédric looked like he single >>>>>>>> handedly pushed out version 2.4.6 - can we ask him to prepare the >>>>>>>> 2.5 beta >>>>>>>> release? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Until we've switched to a new release process, it's still easier if >>>>>>> I do it, yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> - Is there anything outstanding for a 2.5 beta release? - >>>>>>>> Whoever's we're waiting on, can we get an update? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are lots of outstanding issues, that's why it's a beta. In >>>>>>> particular, the new (exciting!) macro stuff is not documented, nor the >>>>>>> AST >>>>>>> matcher complete. It's a super nice feature that deserves polishing. >>>>>>> Plus, >>>>>>> there are some decisions to be made with regards to applying the global >>>>>>> `macro` AST xform globally or not, in particular with groovy-all. We can >>>>>>> solve this after the beta, for sure, but we need to think about it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> - Do we need a VOTE thread for a beta release? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it's a release. We can call it "beta", "rc" or "mushroom", it's >>>>>>> a release anyway :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Mar 2016 at 22:52 Nicholas Grealy <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2016 20:37 Pascal Schumacher < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hello everybody, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> as far as I remember there was wide support for releasing a 2.5 >>>>>>>>>> beta in >>>>>>>>>> the "Release 2.4.6 and 2.5.0-beta?" discussion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The release announcement for 2.4.6 contained the sentence "... be >>>>>>>>>> prepared for a 2.5.0-beta release soon!". Tomorrow that will be >>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>> weeks ago, so I think we should make some plans when we start the >>>>>>>>>> release vote and who will be able to serve as a release manager. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>> Pascal >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Guillaume Laforge >>>>>> Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President >>>>>> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com/> >>>>>> >>>>>> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ >>>>>> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ >>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> Research Associate >>>>>> Department of Computer Science >>>>>> Vassar College >>>>>> Poughkeepsie, NY >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Guillaume Laforge >>> Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President >>> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com> >>> >>> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ >>> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ >>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Guillaume Laforge > Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President > Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com> > > Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ > Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >
