Dears,
As I cannot find similar pages about testing convention, I just create
one with my rough ideas
http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/Testing_Convention, so that we can
document our decision timely & clearly.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Gentlemen!
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:07:51AM +0200, mr A wrote:
On Monday 27 March 2006 10:14, mr B wrote:
On 3/27/06, mr C wrote:
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
[SNIP]
On 1/1/2006, mr D wrote:
[SNIP]
Hmmm... Lemme support [SNIP]
Now let me support [SNIP].
The ASF front page says
(...) "The Apache projects are characterized by a collaborative,
consensus
based development process, " (...)
That's not just some boilerplate. Consensus is a useful thing.
"How should we organize our tests?" has now been the subject of
debate for
*months* around here, and every now and then much of the same
discussion is
rehashed.
And we're making progress. IMO, it really helped my thinking to
distinguish formally between the implementation tests and the spec
tests, because that *completely* helped me come to terms with the
whole o.a.h.test.* issue.
I now clearly see where o.a.h.test.*.HashMapTest fits, and where
java.util.HashMapTest fits.
I don't think our issues were that obvious before, at least to me.
Now, I see clearly.
I think it would be more productive to look for things to agree on
(such as,
"we don't know, but we can find out", or "we have different ideas on
that,
but there's room for both", or "this way of doing things is not the
best one
but the stuff is still useful so let's thank the guy for his work
anyway")
than to keep delving deeper and deeper into these kinds of
disagreements.
Of course, the ASF front page doesn't say that "apache projects are
characterized by a *productive* development process". Its just my
feeling that
for a system as big as harmony we need to be *very* productive.
You don't think we're making progress through these discussions?
Think about it. Is your time better spent convincing lots of other
people to do
their testing differently, or is it better spent writing better tests?
The issue isn't about convincing someone to do it differently, but
understanding the full scope of problems, that we need to embrace both
approaches, because they are apples and oranges, and we need both
apples and oranges. They aren't exclusionary.
geir
--
Richard Liang
China Software Development Lab, IBM
