Hi, On Jan 27, 2008 10:46 AM, Thomas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That does _not_ mean there shouldn't be more test coverage ;-) > > Yes, but we need to agree we want that. We need to define the target, > and the process.
I don't think anyone would disagree with contributions towards improving the Jackrabbit test suite. It's a different matter if we want to raise the bar for incoming contributions or releases to include and pass extensive test suites. At least we need to carefully consider such changes. Having some concrete proposals would help. We already have a reasonably solid and tested codebase to work on, and personally I'm more a fan of continuous improvement based on incoming bug reports than of "Big Testing Up Front" (compare to [1]). A test suite is essentially an operational version of a functional requirements document, and comes with the same drawbacks. Just like I really wouldn't mind having a real design document for Jackrabbit, I'd be happy to see more extensive test coverage. But I don't believe in those things religiously and I wouldn't want to stop feature or bug fixing work because of documentation or testing requirements. I understand that this may well be a bad policy, and I'd be happy to debate it and be proven wrong if possible. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Design_Up_Front BR, Jukka Zitting
