Hi, Tim Schaub píše v Pá 02. 11. 2007 v 10:57 -0600:
> > I can understand this. How many people do have write access to trunk? > > > > http://trac.openlayers.org/wiki/CLA > > The above page describes who has access to what. As with all else in a > wiki, this list requires a person to update it - so I can't say how > current it is, but I think Erik probably is keeping it up. > From what I see in mailing list, only few, who have the access are really committing something or reviewing patches "from outside". Am I wrong? > > > > what do you understand with "test" ? Is it working demo? > > There are two types of tests that we like to see: acceptance tests and > unit tests (wikipedia is a good reference for terms like these). In > general, automated tests are nicer than manually run tests. > > See http://trac.openlayers.org/wiki/CreatingPatches for a link to the > page on writing unit tests. Our automated tests are really a combo of > acceptance and unit tests. We also have some acceptance tests scattered > around the examples directory. > > In short, you should write tests for any modifications. In OpenLayers, > these tests should be written using the Test.AnotherWay setup. If your > modification represents a change that can reasonably be shown with an > example, then your patch should also include an example. > > So, a ticket that proposes a modification should ideally contain *one* > patch. That patch > 1) can be applied cleanly to the trunk, > 2) has inline documentation comments in the NaturalDocs style, > 3) includes tests that run in our Test.Anotherway setup, and > 4) includes an example if appropriate. > > You can find more on the wiki that details things here that you might > not understand. Sorry, the wiki is not so well-arranged to me (like most development wikis). Sometimes I miss something. Thank you to clarifying this. > > How does your patch affect vector layers? They work > Will it work with the upcoming Proj4js work? No idea - I'm working with current subversion repository. Do I have to apply all other proposed changes/patches in order to provide well tests? > Is your proposed feature compatible with markers, popups, > world wrapping, commercial layers, and all other > current features? If I'm posting a patch, than I can only say: "I tested everything, I could. It works for me". When I find something, or somebody will report something, that would not work, I will do my best to fix it. So, to answer your question: yes, everything works for me. > A quick glance at your ticket and attached patches > doesn't answer any of this for me. Nobody ever asked (since 08/06/07 -- sorry, this seems long time to me). My previous answer (5 lines above) applies to this as well. > A more robust (and up to date) > example and tests would help. What concrete are you missing? I have running tests on other servers. Writing another examples just takes time - I have to do some work too. > And a good understanding of how all these > other features work is essential to contributing a modification that > changes map behavior. I know. Am I supposed to prove, that I understand all of this? How? But the discussion went too concrete now. General question is: Do you think, current system is all right? Are there enough reviewers, who are checking the tracker regularly and communicating with the contributors? As you probably understand: I do not think so. Thanks Jachym > > > > > And - I'm posting this to dev list only. Should I post to users list as > > well, to get some kind of support? > > > >> If there is interest from others (replies to the list, comments on the > >> patch), then it would probably make sense to add some tests and make a > >> single patch for your modification. And yes, if it doesn't apply to the > >> trunk, it is even less likely to get reviewed. > > > > If I understand your last sentence right - we are expected to keep our > > patches fresh for several weeks or months? If so, I would have to ask, > > if there could be some better development model(?). > > > > It is not going only about this one issue - I have several other > > improvements, Marker/Label.js, Popup.js, LayerSwitcher.js and others. > > But I'm asking myself, if it is worth the work, to prepare patches, if > > nobody even reviews them :-( > > > > Thanks for your answers > > > > Jachym > > > >> Tim > >> > >> > >> Jachym Cepicky wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> I submitted new patch set to #889 [1], which implements different pixel > >>> resolutions in x and y direction. The patches should work with *current* > >>> version of OpenLayers. > >>> > >>> I would also like to ask several questions: > >>> - when approximately the patch will be added to trunk, or > >>> - when approximately will be decided, this will/will not happen > >>> - what else can I / do I have to do for, the patch will be accepted or > >>> definitely declined > >>> - do I have to prepare fresh patches let say every week, so they are > >>> still usable for current OpenLayers, or is it enough, post them once, > >>> the project managers will update them by themselves? > >>> > >>> Now, I did 3rd version of the patch, till now, there was even no > >>> discussion, if the patch should/should not/should under some conditions > >>> be accepted/declined. > >>> > >>> Sorry, if this sounds rude - this e-mail is not to be understood as > >>> blame. It is just little bit frustrating: If the people are asking for > >>> new features, most general answer is "patches are welcomed". If the > >>> patches are there, nobody wants them. Or, so it looks at least from > >>> here. That is, why I'm asking about the mechanisms of patch > >>> acceptation. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Jachym > >>> > >>> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/889 > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Dev mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >>> > >>> > >>> !DSPAM:4033,472b3b42219125210051143! > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> !DSPAM:4033,472b4c68280415332866982! > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev -- Jachym Cepicky e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://les-ejk.cz GPG: http://www.les-ejk.cz/pgp/jachym_cepicky-gpg.pub
signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
