Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
How about adding another condition: a block can only have "supported" status if we have automated tests for all its critical functions?
This might make a big difference in the accountability of supported stuff in our releases.
That is a great idea. Then rather than calling them "supported" we can call them "tested" or "verified". Much better connotation.
I like the connotation of "verified" as well, but I'm not sure if we should reflect this status in our directory system. IMHO the release of a block can be verified but I'm not sure if a block in SVN can be verified. Think of a block that is verified and then it is refactored or a major enhancement is added. Does it still meet all requirements (tested, peer-reviewed, ...) afterwards? Maybe, but maybe not. If not, do we move it into another directory, although the last release was verified?
--
Reinhard Pötz Independant Consultant, Trainer & (IT)-Coach
{Software Engineering, Open Source, Web Applications, Apache Cocoon}web(log): http://www.poetz.cc --------------------------------------------------------------------
