Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> Raphaël Luta wrote:
> >
> > Now that we have a tinderbox, we still have 2 options:
> > - use "reference point" for the dependency on other projects
> > (like Turbine TDK jars) and update the dependency on
> > every update of the reference point (something which we
> > haven't done with Castor)
>
> It is my hope that the "business as usual" case is that projects like
> JetSpeed will work with a range of versions of their dependencies. This
> should generally include the latest released version of the dependency and
> the current head version of the dependency. As a general rule, people who
> build projects that they want others to depend on need to build and depend
> on need to take great care to schedule their interface changes and
> deprecate prior interfaces for a period of time instead of simply removing
> them.
>
This is currently (and unfortunately) not true for Turbine which is evolving
very rapidly sometimes without backward compatibility. Even more important,
even if the we can build against the latest CVS head of Turbine, it does not
mean we can run against it because there may have been changes in the config
files, SQL schemas, etc... that aren't detected by tinderbox and require
manual compatibility checking/update.
> > - update the reference point whenever the Tinderbox detects
> > an incompatible build or whene a new reference point is
> > released) in order to make the CVS HEAD always buildable
> > against the other projects CVS HEAD.
>
> If the goal is to support a limited range, then the ideal would be that the
> reference point be the stable end of this range. This isolates developers
> from day to day fluctuations and bugs in other projects that may occur from
> random snapshots.
>
> However, the current state with respect to Castor is an example of what
> should not be done. Not supporting either the head or latest release is
> not good.
>
Completely agreed.
> > - even if the HEAD are buildable against each other, this
> > does not guarantee that they produce *functional* code.
> > There must be a standard test suite used in all the
> > projects in order to guarantee functionality (like make
> > tests for Perl). Is there any work done on this ? Which
> > mailing-list should I subscribe for that ?
>
> I would gladly add the execution of tests to the tinderbox runs. What
> tests are appropriate are generally a project by project decision.
>
Is there a "standard" testing infrastructure for Jakarta projects ? JUnit ?
I know there's already an Ant task for this framework.
--
Raphaël Luta - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vivendi Universal Networks - Services Manager / Paris
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/>
List Help?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
