Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote: > > Kornel Benko wrote: > >> I do not agree. We should check attic too IMHO (or else do not provide it). > >> Therefore I prefer you to commit :) > > > > We "provide it" :) > > Have you ever looked at the junk in development/attic? It's almost > > definition > > that we put files there if they are no more functional. The only reason I > > can > > see for keeping those files is mere reminder that we had something like this > > in past and someone perhaps do not need to start from scratch with writing > > e.g. Reference.lyx again... > > I'm still not sure what the purpose of attic is and which attic we're > talking about. Currently no documents in development/attic are tested.
I entered the thread when the discussion started to be about default_output_format missing somewhere in development/attic/*.lyx. > I was under the impression that the documents in doc/attic were not > junk and were just outdated. My first impression is that attic should > not be used for outdated documents. There is really no agreement on attic meaning, people just chaotically use it. >I think that you (Pavel) said that > it's better to have an outdated document in one of the language > folders than no document (that is, it would be in the attic). This > way, perhaps a translator would be inspired to continue the previous > work. I agree with this argument (as long as we put a note at the top > that it is outdated). I think that this is also the policy with some > of the official documents. For example, in Customization, "Including > External Material": Agreed. > In this case, I'm not sure what would be put in doc/attic. We should > wait for Uwe before anything is decided. To sum up my points: Old stuff: - development/attic is here for ages accumulating old stuff which slowly turns into junk, lot of stuff might be there just because we prefer going to beach than sort out what should be deleted. - at some point I started to move a outdated documentation (e.g. various FAQ*lyx files there). - later Uwe started to create attic directly in lib/, I believe he had no idea of development/attic already used for another old docs. - to add next layer of chaos, we have yet another way how to deal with this issue in po/ directory. Outdated files are kept there and we just do not add those into tarball (based on manual listing). If feel like you can make it more consistent. Testing: As said earlier I see different kinds of tests, the division is somewhat fuzzy, but still: a) specific testing aimed on small group of devs who know how to set it up and know what went wrong if some test fails (e.g. autotest). b) regression testing aimed generally at devs and especially release maintainers/managers, e.g. tex2lyx tests, export tests etc. c) user targetted testing, confirming that the machine is fine for working with lyx. My concerns were mainly for c) (for other categories do any business you are pleased to do): - it needs to be bulletproof, if it fails you can't expect user to understand what is going on and how to fix it, it simply means we do not encourage to install and use it. - it is part of/works with autotools (ATM build system for creating official tarballs) - it resides on "known" make targets, like "make check" If you create some specific target like the proposed lyx_run_tests then most of my previous objections like "each test should be carefully prepared", "missing gnumeric means skip, not err" are mere comments not objections :) It would make sense that we have targets like, test-lyx2lyx, test-export, test-tex2lyx, ... all could be called via lyx_run_tests or whatever. So people who are just responsible for e.g. tex2lyx can call it separately without being stuck at some irrelevant stuff in attic/blabla. Pavel
