Hello, Am Sonntag, 28. April 2013 schrieb Seth Arnold: > I don't know anything about the GSoC project or process, but it'd be
Let's change that ;-) We (Kshitij, John and I) discussed several things in private mails, but Kshitij's proposal is public - feel free to have a look at it ;-) http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/google/gsoc2013/kshitij8/1 If you have any questions or comments on the proposal, just reply to this mail ;-) (You won't be able to comment directly on the page because you are not a GSoC mentor. Only John and I can add comments.) > fun to have some fresh input on AppArmor and the tools. The existing > Perl-based tools feel a bit .. brittle. (At least, I'm scared of > modifying them.) ;-) > One thing we'd really like is some good tests to go with the new > tools; I have found that code that was written with the intention of > testing tends to be better code anyway, as the thought "how do I test > this?" forces a better design. (Some people prefer to take this to > the extreme and do test-driven development. I haven't tried, so I > can't comment on the effectiveness, but I'm a bit worried about the > idea of "stopping when the tests all pass". Well, I will be the final enemy^Wtestcase *eg* - I'm quite sure you know how hard that can be ;-) Regards, Christian Boltz PS: non-random sig ;-) -- > "Quite low" is 1 in 4 billion. Murphy could make me believe you saw it > once, but not twice. You could plausibly see it in a stress test rig This _is_ Christian :) he has a knack for finding bugs no one else can.. [> Crispin Cowan and Seth Arnold in apparmor-general] -- AppArmor mailing list AppArmor@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
