Hello,
The discussion on smoking and branching is driven by the need to maintain
quality across a wide
range of compilers and target(1) machines. I would add a couple of points.
0. When working through the review process the tool I wanted the most was a
simple way
to test
On 3/29/07, Joshua Isom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:20 PM, jerry gay wrote:
On 3/29/07, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
particle and i'm not interested in testing every
revision,
when so many might be coding standards
Why are people even
jerry gay wrote:
Should we even require all of these tests to be ran by default? These
tests should never fail for a user compiling a release version of
parrot, so should they need to test them? They're good for developers,
but only developers.
until we stop actively developing major
Will Coleda wrote:
So lets document what we need. Right now 'make smoke' generates an HTML
report which is uploaded to the smoke server.
Talk has happened in the past about making this more DB like instead of
rendered output, but my concern is for the user visible features we're
lacking.
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:58:19AM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
I concur that the user shouldn't get failing tests for things like
whitespace at the end of lines. More importantly, the user shouldn't be
wasting time running tests for coding standards and documentation. How
about a 'make
On Friday 30 March 2007 09:36, Nicholas Clark wrote:
An alternative is to have Cmake test be an alias, either to Cmake
devtest by default, and a smaller Cmake usertest (or somesuch) when the
source tree is an official release. Having the source tree know when it's
an official release (perhaps
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:45:57PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
Steve_p It works OK if everyone agrees that one ( or a very
few) access the maintanence branch
bernhard How many branches are we talking about 1,2 or 10 ?
chromatic Steve_p, I think
On Thursday 29 March 2007 13:05, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I don't think that the stable/development spit in Perl 5 land is broken.
There is a problem that there aren't enough people with good enough
knowledge to be committers, and in particular to want to review and apply
patches supplied by
On 3/29/07, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
particle and i'm not interested in testing every revision,
when so many might be coding standards
Why are people even checking things in that fail coding standards?
because not all coding standard tests are run with 'make
particle and i'm not interested in testing every revision,
when so many might be coding standards
Why are people even checking things in that fail coding standards?
The line-ending coding standards tests can be a problem in some cases, where
Windows developers add new files
chromatic == chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
chromatic The line-ending coding standards tests can be a problem
chromatic in some cases, where Windows developers add new files
chromatic with their native format and forget to set the
chromatic svn:eol-style=native property on
Eric Hanchrow wrote:
Here's the relevant bits from my
config file:
[miscellany]
### Set enable-auto-props to 'yes' to enable automatic properties
### for 'svn add' and 'svn import', it defaults to 'no'.
### Automatic properties are defined in the section 'auto-props'.
Eric Hanchrow wrote:
Here's the relevant bits from my
config file:
[miscellany]
### Set enable-auto-props to 'yes' to enable automatic properties
### for 'svn add' and 'svn import', it defaults to 'no'.
### Automatic properties are defined in the section 'auto-props'.
On Mar 27, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
particlebut, we need better smoke tools
So lets document what we need. Right now 'make smoke' generates an
HTML report which is uploaded to the smoke server.
Talk has happened in the past about making this more DB like
On Mar 29, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
particlebut, we need better smoke tools
So lets document what we need. Right now 'make smoke' generates an
HTML report which is uploaded to the smoke server.
Talk has
On Thursday 29 March 2007 23:03, Joshua Isom wrote:
One other thing I've noticed is that todo tests sometimes become
forgotten tests. And since they're sometimes platform specific, they
don't get fixed for that platform because feature x doesn't have the
code support. Other than doing a
On Mar 29, 2007, at 4:20 PM, jerry gay wrote:
On 3/29/07, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
particle and i'm not interested in testing every
revision,
when so many might be coding standards
Why are people even checking things in that fail coding standards?
because
A discussion of draft document
http://rakudo.org/parrot/index.cgi?parallel_development_requirements,
with some side threads edited out. See
http://www.parrotcode.org/misc/parrotsketch-logs/irclog.parrotsketch-200703/irclog.parrotsketch.20070327
for the full text.
...
Coke ok. This is
18 matches
Mail list logo
