On 2017-04-28 02:35 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 27.04.2017 um 22:51 schrieb Vasiliy Faronov:
Hi all,
From discussions elsewhere, such as [1], it sounds like one of the
things holding back Geany development right now is a need for more
testing.
Helping to test PRs is truly needed, and much appreciated.
However, I do think that Geany lacks also actual developers that cna
merge stuff. I feel the current team is afraid of merging non-trivial
changes, leaving even semi-complex patches to Colomban. Unfortunately
Colomban has little time these days, too, so we're kind of stuck. There
are lots of PRs that have recent activity from the authors and are
tested appropriately but still don't get attention from developers.
My general problem is that we don't have a unstable/development branch
per se, nor proper automated testing, and I don't want to break master
so I won't merge a single thing without testing it thoroughly myself.
This can turn a 5-10 minute merge into a several hours or more testing
session, requiring special setups and re-compiling Geany on 3 different
OSes, etc.
Travis CI is great, but unless it can run make check with loads of
static analysis and runtime analysis while it runs unit tests and such,
it's basically just saying the code compiles. As we all know, it's
relatively easy to make C code that compiles but crashes horribly at
runtime in weird corner cases (off by one, null deref, etc.).
Personally I'd feel a lot better merging PRs I haven't thoroughly tested
if we had:
- Clang static analyzer during the build
- A Git hook or manual use of clang-format or other formatter to
prevent the "extra white space" or "wrong comment style" type of issues
that commonly occur in PRs.
- Ability for PRs to come with tests (requires testing support).
- Linking in Clang's address & memory sanitizers while running all of
the tests.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Matthew Brush
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
