2016-10-30 11:52 GMT+01:00 Nicolai Hess <[email protected]>: > > > 2016-10-30 11:41 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <[email protected]>: > >> Hi, >> >> I actually think there is no disagreement in this discussion :). > > > I am not sure about that. > > > >> I see it similarly to how Dale described it, but perhaps I am wrong. It >> seems to me that: >> - Guille and Stef are talking about Core, they refer to the smallest >> image that can be useful for a developer and that is being built out of the >> tiny kernel. Indeed, Mocks do not belong there. Specifically, as FileSystem >> does belong in this image, we should not make FileSystem testing depend on >> Mocks. >> - Denis is talking about the typical distribution that we now name the >> Pharo image. Mocks might actually belong in this one quite nicely. >> >> > Denis wants to have a Mock-Framework to be used for SUnit, and if we have > Kernel and Kernel-Tests in the bootstrap image, the Mocks-Framework has to > be in it too, no ? > > >> From a practical point of view, it is not a good option to add new things >> for Pharo 6. We have decided that Pharo 6 is closed for new features. > > > Feature freeze? Really, since when? >
Does it means any changes (I am working on) for keymapping and style settings has to be moved to Pharo 7? > > > >> However, once we have the new process in place for Pharo 7, we can >> reconsider our options. The new process should precisely make it easier and >> safer to play with new things for the official distribution that has >> several convenience libraries inside. >> >> @Guille, Stef: Does this reflect what you think? >> @Denis: Is this reasonable for you? >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >> > On Oct 30, 2016, at 9:33 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Denis >> > >> > We are working since 4 years now to get >> > >> > - have a small kernel + tests >> > >> > - be able to load nicely configurations >> > >> > We should not add something else than Sunit for tests of the small >> kernels tests. >> > >> > Now people can use whatever they want to test their system but for the >> core >> > >> > we are really picky because loading on single package may add far too >> many dependencies. >> > >> > and it means >> > >> > - more time to load >> > >> > - more time to debug >> > >> > - more time to just understand what did not work during the >> bootstrap. >> > >> > So our goal is to shrink the minimal core and not to extend it. So we >> will add mock by hand if we need them. >> > >> > I agree with Guillermo. Far too much pain. >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > Le 28/10/16 à 18:51, Denis Kudriashov a écrit : >> >> We always said that smalltalk is the best for TDD. >> >> But we not have mocks by default in Pharo while mocks is fundamental >> part of TDD. >> >> So no kernel tests could benefit from them. >> >> And more important TDD is design process and without mocks we can't >> apply it to kernel with full power. >> >> What you think to integrate Mocketry in Pharo 6? >> >> It has comments and documentation (PharoInProgress, Help), advanced >> features and it is very competitive to any modern mock libraries. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Denis >> > >> > >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> www.feenk.com >> >> "Value is always contextual." >> >> >> >> >> >> >
