On Friday 02 November 2007, Christian Theune wrote: > > I think that extras for tests are a necessary evil until we have > > unscrewed the dependencies of the functional test setups. > > Depends on what 'unscrew' means. Functional test setups might want to > demonstrate more in-depth, "real-life" scenarios where they have to > introduce more dependencies than the actual package itself needs, so two > sets of dependencies are needed anyway, or not?
He he, yep, you are right. The point I was trying to make is that unscrewing the functional tests dependencies is a pointless exercise since you want to demonstrate the functionality in one more realistic environment. Like you said. And those dependencies might not match my use of the package. BTW, I think you guys did a good job of separating the real and testing dependencies for the Zope packages. Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student) Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - [email protected] http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
