On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Christoph Zwerschke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 15.02.2011 16:15 schrieb Michael Pedersen: > > Interest? Yes. However, here's where my first significantly unpopular >> decision is likely to happen. I don't think we can incorporate those >> changes for 2.2. We have way too many issues that need to be resolved. >> Open bugs in the code and in the documentation, and a major >> documentation overhaul, are all required fixes. Changing the dispatch >> mechanism again? I don't think I can get behind that as yet. Our API is >> too undocumented, too unstable, and it's causing chaos. Every release, >> we're deprecating how dispatch happens. This is not good for our users, >> and therefore is ultimately not good for us. >> > > What we actually need are unit tests with 100% coverage, integration tests > and performance tests that really show whether something has broken or > impacted performance. Ideally, these should run on a CI server where we can > always see the history and current status. > > When we have put such automated tests in place, we can tackle larger > refactorings with much more confidence, and development will also be much > more fun. > This is a would be really great to have happen. I think there may be a bit much going on right now to get too wrapped up in it, but it should definitely be on the radar. CI in particular would be a great help. As far as integration/performance tests, what were you thinking? Behavior-driven tests, using something like Lettuce or PyCukes? Scripted installations? Something else? > Florent just told me he is still offering his dedicated server which would > be ideal for such purposes, and we could also use it for bug tracking if it > turns out we cannot migrate the Trac to SF because of lack of API > documentation and limitations of the hosted Trac. > > So to make progress here I suggest we give the SF migration a chance only > until next week. But if it turns out SF is too limited we should gladly > accept Florent's offer and use his dedicated server. > > Another idea to push things forward: We could use http://flow.io for > managing the higher level project management, coordinating our efforts, > keeping track of what needs to be done and spreading the workload. > > -- Christoph > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en.
