[dropped perl-qa and p6l from this thread, as it's repo-related, and not directly related to those lists]
On 8/12/06, Audrey Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
在 2006/8/12 上午 3:01 時，jerry gay 寫到： > for "managed," i have a few ideas. currently, the suite lives in the > pugs repo. this is a fine first approximation, but i believe it will > soon be time to move this suite (it doesn't make sense to keep the > "official" tests in a non-official repo in the long term.)
<snip repo urls/> That's fine. However, currently the commit bit to that directory does
not make it easy for people to help out, and while we can do this through a test-pumpking that reviews each patches and commit by hand, I don't think that's a wise move to take.
...at this time. i agree that now is not the time to make access to test writers more difficult, we want all the help we can get, and have no need for bottlenecks. in the future (think perl 6.0-alpha) i think such controls will become important. in fact, these controls already exist for the specs. i should not have said "soon" in my original email, it seems to have led to some anxiety... but after so many years of perl 6 development, i think one or two more years is pretty soon :) It's true that "you need an openfoundry.org account to write tests
for perl 6" may make people feel this to be less official. If we can get a good invitation system to hand out commit bits to svn.perl.org, I'm all for moving everything to there.
Robrt had set one up for svn.perl.org/parrot/, but that is currently
not actively promoted because of the policy that new committers to that directory has to sign TPF's Contributor License Agreement. If we can relax that policy for the perl6/ or perl6/t/ directory, so we can migrate the openfoundry committers over without them having to sign the CLA by paper -- digitally clickthrough would be fine -- then I agree that we can migrate everything to svn.perl.org.
agreed, (continued) low entry barriers for new committers would be wonderful. this is not my policy to set, but i can contact tpf to see if these issues can be addressed.
the question is, should it be moved into their own repository, or > into the repo of > the "official" perl6 implementation (if such a beast will indeed > exist,) Currently the svn.perl.org repo is the most official-sounding one, by the domain name alone. (But I don't understand the motivation for putting the tests with "the true implementation" -- I thought the idea is to decouple the tests with any implementations.) So I think svn.perl.org is the right choice, if the admins are okay with a more relaxed commit bit policy there.
if, in the future, there is an "official" perl 6 implementation (hand-waving alert!) it may make sense to put all "official" artifacts together -- spec, tests, and implementation, all in one repo. that's again forward thinking and not something to be concerned about now. what i'd like to see happen now is some separation between the perl 6 test suite and a particular implementation. where that repo lives may be somewhat dependent on which host(s) can accomodate the requested committer policy, but that is not an unanswerable question. the issue of tool support for access to external repositories is a separate but related issue, and should be addressed in a separate thread related to my original post. ~jerry
