On 28/11/2012 11:50 PM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
On 28-11-12 14:40, Peter Firmstone wrote:
At stable points the skunk development branch can replace trunk. We
might have a period of refactoring and bug fixing, followed by a period
of stabilisation, testing and documenting, before replacing trunk, then
branching off a release.
I would patch or selectively merge from skunk to trunk in this case.
Ok, sounds good.
I'd also like to see the qa test suite broken out and managed
separately, this would allow the same test libraries to run against both
skunk development and trunk branches.
Please explain some more.
It would be nice to have a stable qa suite branch for testing River
development and another for refactoring and developing the test suite
itself, without interfering with the development process of River. The
test suite requires maintenance too, but right now it's a frightening
prospect.
I'd like to be able to run an experimental test suite with a stable
River trunk to test the test suite so to speak.
When River was set up from the donated Jini code, the qa suite was an
independantly developed library accompanied by integration tests, it was
integrated because it was converted to ant from an old make build few
know how to compile or run.
The tests can be brokend down into:
1. Jini specification tests.
2. Implementation integration tests.
3. jtreg regression and unit tests.
Some other benefits might be:
The tests don't change much so using them as a library reduces compile
and build time, encouraging testing more often.
Since the last release I've found numerous concurrency and
synchronization issues with the test suite, this is made more difficult
by the inheritance hierarchy of the test suite. I'd like to do more
refactoring of the test suite, but do so against a stable trunk, without
hindering trunk develpment, since it could take some time.
Regards,
Peter.
