The way I see it, when someone downloads the source package, it means that they will be messing around with the code. All the more reason to have a testing suite packaged with the source kit.
I agree with Nick that we should lower the barrier for folks to fix bugs and run tests. The utilities like I worked on a while ago - OneClickMustella [1] will make it easy to run the whole test suite or just the ones relevant to the files that got modified. This could increase more drive by patches. The more patches someone contributes, the better are our chances to get new committers into the project. Thanks, Om [1] http://markmail.org/message/iehxp5cpl62yp7gw On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > On 1/29/13 8:17 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <nicho...@spoon.as> wrote: > > > I think the question then begs -- do we expect people (non-committers) to > > run bug fixes / new features against Mustella, or do we only do it when > we > > commit them to SVN, or do we only run Mustella against the source tree > when > > we package up a release? I think that will have the most baring if it > will > > be worth making a "release that includes testing suite" > I wouldn't expect non-committers to run mustella unless they have a desire > to become a committer, in which case they should have the full SVN tree. > > Committers reviewing patches before submitting should definitely run > mustella regardless if the patch author said they did nor not. We've made > some utilities that select the fewest tests to run to ensure that nothing > in > mustella breaks. > > I would like to see PMC members run mustella before voting on a release > candidate. > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >
