That's a hell of a rant Gerhard, but doesn't answer how a user like myself can actually help. What is a 'maintainer' for instance? Can you give me a link to the steps needed to review/approve new code? I'm sure many of us would like to help if we knew how, otherwise its just a request for features and reports on bugs which you call 'gimmes' - very unhelpful! Tony
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022, 07:01 Gerhard Sittig, <gerhard.sit...@gmx.net> wrote: > On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 08:41 +0000, Steen Huib (TT-CS/XCT1.2) wrote: > > > > I can see your point and I was thinking about a solution. Are > > there any automated tests or can we create automated tests (not > > specifically on one location as you would need all equipment) > > to secure quality? > > Can you also see what this sounds like for a developer? Sounds > like: Gimme, gimme gimme! > > The sigrok.org project communicated in the past its coding style > and portability goal, and over time collected a code base with a > VCS history. Reviews were done in public, for obvious reasons. > Any number of users could have participated, picked up something, > and helped carry on. That's how in the past new developers came > to the project, to balance others' going away or changing > interests. > > In recent times I hear more often: Gimme (a config for my > editor). Gimme (a linter). Gimme (a builder). Gimme (a tester). > Gimme (pretty web UI forms). Gimme (more guidance). Gimme (less > knowledge to keep). Gimme (lower barriers). I'm tired of these > requests which essentially keep communicating that developers > need to do much more before a user could even start to think > considering to maybe start thinking about spending a minute to > see if there could be a possibility of maybe helping a little. > Are today's developers really that dependent on tools and > processes that they are helpless in their absence? > > See the current ML thread. How severely was the issue raised? How > many have spoken, and what have they spoken? "Let's wait more" or > "let's see what we can do" or "let's see what we can think of > what they need to do"? And how many stood there and watched? > _That's_ the thing that gets me so raging, the silent majority > that keeps sitting and watching. Maybe shake their heads, > thinking they'd know better, but not lending a hand. There must > be a better way to get the work done than keep watching. > > The problem with the very automated test setup that you describe > above is: It's not just about connecting several devices > somewhere. Before that, you need to have them, and nobody does. > Neither do developers. Then none of the setup could be automated. > We are dealing with measurement gear and external entities that > get communicated to while we neither can stimulate nor control > them. Or not in useful ways, as during development you keep > visiting different features or human/device interactions that > were not covered before (if you got any of this). So "it's always > a new situation". Try to do that for some of these devices, > create and maintain test jigs and come up with automated test > setups and the effort exceeds by far what a project can do that > is run in a few developers' spare time. Then have another look at > the hardware list https://sigrok.org/wiki/Supported_hardware and > re-consider. And keep in mind that whatever you start with, users > will complain that _their_ personal interest wasn't covered. :( > > Or am I getting your question wrong, and it wasn't about > automated tests of devices and their operation, but was about > something else? Then the above was not strictly related but still > applies in all other contexts of this thread and the interaction > between the project's participants. > > I personally don't believe in many of these automated tools which > some people love to shift their responsibility to. I do believe > that humans know much better than machines what's appropriate to > them. Let's get back to the review of submitted code. What's the > effort to create a checker? Some projects have them, but they > also got a lot more active members. The sigrok.org project > doesn't have these, and I believe it doesn't need them. And what > are the odds of submitters running them? And taking their output > serious, and act upon them? And still the presence of a tool does > not release humans from the necessity to use their brains during > action. When in doubt, it's still the human who decides. In the > case of source code, when a human cannot see what's happening, or > tell what the consequences are, then how is the tool supposed to > help? > > I'd wish there would be more people listening or watching what > developers say or do, form a common body of growing knowledge, > share the workload, help getting things done. If you want such a > tool, consider creating one, but don't "expect the developers to > ship one to you". If others want that tool, too, then join forces > and create one. Whatever you do, there still is no need to wait > for a developer to do it. > > Need I explicitly state that this is a personal view of mine as > one of the active sigrok users? And that I'm not a maintainer? > Because some (many?) still haven't gotten this. If you want the > project's official take on the subject then ask a maintainer. > > > virtually yours > Gerhard Sittig > -- > If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above > ask your parents or an adult to help you. > > > _______________________________________________ > sigrok-devel mailing list > sigrok-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sigrok-devel >
_______________________________________________ sigrok-devel mailing list sigrok-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sigrok-devel
