Hi, * Scott Tringali wrote (2008-01-02 11:41): >Thorsten Haude wrote: > >>At 2007-08-02 20:16 -0400 you write: >>>for a few months now, [...] once a week, I get a spontaneous shutdown. >> >>At 2007-08-02 07:13 you write: >>>Added OpenMotif 2.3 to stable list. >> >>Now for SF's broken date I don't know which happened first but I would >>think that the former would preclude the latter. > >The subtext here is "Why didn't you mark OM 2.3 it unstable?" You could >just ask directly, I can take it.
I don't think I was particularly subtle, neither did I try.
>I do try to apply the same stability criteria to LessTif as
>OpenMotif, but I may be wrong. I'm happy to explain why.
>
>[...]
Thanks for the explanation. Sorry if that came across cross, but I do
often get the impression that Lesstif is shot down at the first
opportunity while Motif is assumed to be stable until proven
otherwise.
So to get something out of it: I think we need a test suite. We could
probably put a macro in the release tarball which, with a few user
interactions, can test most critical sections.
I also experimented with X11::GUITest, I think we could use that to do
tests ourself or to automate tests somewhere. (I tried to get the SF
guys to install Xvfb on the compile farms, but they rather closed them
down entirely.)
Thorsten
--
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours,
and this we should do freely and generously.
- Benjamin Franklin
pgpw01C1AOoNg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- NEdit Develop mailing list - [email protected] http://www.nedit.org/mailman/listinfo/develop
