Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> What do I need if just adding an optional flag for fixtures? Instead
> of my refactored two-class solution, I could just add a
> skip.on.failure={true,false} flag to extend the functionality of
> OnlineTestCase, as proposed by Andrea.
That also sounds good. In this matter I want to trust you on what sounds
good; and read your proposal when ready.
>
> If the change left the default behaviour the same as now, would I need
> to write a proposal? Or would simple patch submission suffice?
Here is my plan. Right now the instructions for making use of
OnlineTests are not very good. And the codebase does not consistently
make use of them.
Since you care about this problem I would love if you could write down
what is reasonable so we can figure out what to do on this front.
So I would really like a proposal no matter what; that is GeoTools
policy for build level changes. Notice I made a proposal last week for
something that amounted to adding a bunch of profiles so you did not
need to build unsupported modules.
Just so I am clear: if you are hoping to make your patch small enough to
avoid writing a proposal - I am afraid I must disappoint you :-) It is
the subject area you are working (namely something that effects several
modules) that makes the need for a proposal clear. And also the need to
update the developers guide.
Think of the proposal as summing up the email conversation we have had
with Andrea.
Cheers,
Jody
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
