On Jun 6, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
I know that the word "packaging" is kind of a dirty word in MacPorts-
land (perhaps largely due to the fact that certain people just won't
stop harping about it :-), so maybe it's time for a new(er) topic in
an old conversation: Testing.
Since a picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words, let me
also refer to the picture below for justification as to why we
should be worrying more about testing. Ports are accumulating at
the fairly steady rate of 800-1000 a year, and it's also fair to say
that individual ports are getting more complex. What started as a
fairly simplistic attempt at key/value pairs in Tcl has since grown
Groups, variants and, in some cases, fairly non-trivial tcl code in
individual Portfiles, and all of that begs the question: Given all
the complexity involved, how many of these almost 6000 ports
actually work at any given time? Anyone have an accurate number?
Anyone? Beuller? No worries, it was a purely rhetorical question to
which I already know the answer: We have no idea, though we
certainly hope that users will report breakage in a fairly timely
fashion so we can fix things as they come up, and if there are no
users of a port to report errors, then who really cares if it's
broken? We then proceed to the rather circular argument of
justifying the existence of ports which don't currently work but are
kept around purely on the argument that they *might* at some point
in the future.
What is the actual connection between "testing" and the graph you have
included?
Details please.
73 de Jeff sez Gracie to George
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
