yes good idea.! On Mar 10, 2013, at 1:33 AM, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote:
> stephane ducasse wrote: >>> That is why, either we explicitly put the 'Tests' group in the 'default' >>> group, >>> >> >> - I would go for this behavior because I do not like implicit behavior when >> this is about configuration >> and I will start to write comments in all the configurations >> "default is used when nothing is specified by default it will load >> everything but better specify what everything is" >> >> >> So once we agree I will start editing configurations like a mad. >> >> Stef >> >> > In you book chapter about Configurations you might hint "why" it is preferred > to include Tests in default. For me... > * people fresh to the package get some examples. > * encourages new tests to be added. Having to find & load a 'Tests' group at > a later time would be an impediment to this. > > You might also consider a convention for an 'Examples' group. > > >
