On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:42:08 -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> Interesting. My only real concern at this point is that some of the new files
> have a copyright header identifying Junio as the copyright holder, but
> no license information. Meanwhile, the implicit license of git (GPLv2
> only) is
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:56 +0100, Michal Sojka wrote:
> I'm not lawyer, but I'd say it should be no problem to use GPLv2 test
> suite to test your GPLv3 application. You are not linking them
> together.
Right. We could do that. But we'd have to be careful to document things
carefully to keep
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:42:08 -0800, Carl Worth cwo...@cworth.org wrote:
Interesting. My only real concern at this point is that some of the new files
have a copyright header identifying Junio as the copyright holder, but
no license information. Meanwhile, the implicit license of git (GPLv2
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:47:56 +0100, Michal Sojka sojk...@fel.cvut.cz wrote:
I'm not lawyer, but I'd say it should be no problem to use GPLv2 test
suite to test your GPLv3 application. You are not linking them
together.
Right. We could do that. But we'd have to be careful to document things
Hi Michal,
I found myself today *really* needing to add a test that exercises some
code in our emacs client. (Eric found that a message that includes a ":"
in the From: address breaks things due to a buggy regexp.) And I
wanted to see if I could merge your conversion of the test suite before
I
Hi Michal,
I found myself today *really* needing to add a test that exercises some
code in our emacs client. (Eric found that a message that includes a :
in the From: address breaks things due to a buggy regexp.) And I
wanted to see if I could merge your conversion of the test suite before
I
On Thursday 04 of February 2010 21:50:18 Carl Worth wrote:
> The test suite is still extremely rudimentary. Here are some things I'd
> like to improve about it:
I converted the actual version of notmuch-test to git test framework.
The result is in the followup patches.
I'd like to know opinion
On Thursday 04 of February 2010 21:50:18 Carl Worth wrote:
The test suite is still extremely rudimentary. Here are some things I'd
like to improve about it:
I converted the actual version of notmuch-test to git test framework.
The result is in the followup patches.
I'd like to know opinion of
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
> Looking at TAP, one thing I don't like is that it prints the
> success/failure of the test first, before the description of the
> test. That's not so nice in the case of a long-running (perhaps
> infinitely running) test where you might need to
Carl, have you considered outputting the test suite in the same format
as the test anything protocol? [1] I only mention this because it
might be a nice way to easily do some reporting (or perhaps even
continuous integration) notmuch, with trivial effort.
--
Oliver Charles / aCiD2
[1]:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 21:27:52 +, Oliver Charles wrote:
> Carl, have you considered outputting the test suite in the same format
> as the test anything protocol? [1] I only mention this because it
> might be a nice way to easily do some reporting (or perhaps even
> continuous integration)
I've just pushed out some improvements to make the little notmuch-test
script I had posted earlier into an actual test suite. I've included the
output of a run of the test suite below so that you can get an idea of
what it does so far.
What I'd like to see going forward is that new features get
12 matches
Mail list logo
