cool. Not sure what could be the roadmap on this. Like I see it maybe the first thing to do is to integrate the changes on the test suite from Alexander. Then we can probably add quickcheck test on each each module using the macros to define if they are executed or not?
- benoit On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 11 Jun 2014, at 19:39 , Russell Branca <chewbra...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I'm a huge +1 to this. >> >> I've been trying to figure out a way to get us able to use the full version >> of QuickCheck for a while now. John Hughes has been hinting that they found >> a way to make the licensing work for open source, and it seems like this is >> it. >> >> The full version of QuickCheck has some sweet features for testing out >> state machines and also the PULSE scheduler which randomizes the execution >> of processes to help discover race conditions: >> http://www.quviq.com/features.html >> >> To clarify the questions about another "CI" server, I believe the reason >> for this being released as a CI server is as a way to use the full version >> of QuickCheck without them having to distribute it. > > Ah, apologies for missing that particular context. > > I’m still +100 on this :) > > Best > Jan > -- > >> >> >> -Russell >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> QC is not a CI tool. It’s more like an additional layer of more thorough >>> unit testing that could (depending on their terms) run by our existing CI >>> solutions. >>> >>> I’d be in favour of looking at how we can make it work! >>> >>> Best >>> Jan >>> -- >>> >>> On 11 Jun 2014, at 13:06 , Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: >>> >>>> n Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> quickcheck made quickcheck-ci available for free for open-sources >>> projects: >>>>> >>>>> http://quickcheck-ci.com/ >>>>> >>>>> It would be interresting to use it for couchdb imo. Thoughts? >>>> >>>> If we still use Travis, we already have 2 CI instances, and they have >>>> not been able to prevent drawn out release processes like the one for >>>> 1.6.0. Unless we somehow think this will magically solve all our CI >>>> needs, I'd prefer to instead spend time on improving other parts of >>>> the CI we already have. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Dirkjan >>> >>> >
