On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:37:06AM -0800, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >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.
Definitely. Lots. > 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. Cool. > >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? I didn't say that! "More productive" means a contrast with a "productive", not with a "no progress". In fact, productivity and progress are not even on the same axes -- they're oranges and pears. Discussions are a good thing, especially early on in the life of a project they're very neccessary. > >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. I agree. I also don't want to convince anyone to do things differently. I just wanted to point out this "consensus" thing and how useful it can be to actively (instead of lazily) look for it. *shrug*. When trying to help find consensus leads to /more/ discussion you just know that you should've kept your mouth shut... LSD
