On Apr 6, 2007, at 11:48 AM, chromatic wrote:
On Friday 06 April 2007 00:58, Joshua Isom wrote:
What if we had a repository, ala pugs with it's "open" commits, solely
for people to commit tests. It could help improve bug discovery and
test coverage, as well as ambiguity about features in parrot. Then
developers could just update it and run it seperately(and check it to
make sure nothing malicious gets through which is always a potential
of
course).
Is that a big convenience over mailing patches to the list or
nopasting them
for IRC such that people who won't do either of those will happily
commit
them?
It would add a convenience if we had a web form that just listed what
testing method, the input, and the output for example. If it's
promoted on the main page or somewhere on the site, then someone
wouldn't have the join the list(which they may not want to do for some
reason), or they may not have an irc client. I never really used an
irc client before I started joining #parrot. I was working with parrot
a couple months before I ever joined.
Are the specifications good and complete enough that tests can be
unambiguously correct?
Reading over a pdd isn't the same as writing code based on that pdd.
Something the ambiguoity isn't intentional and was just missed. Plus
if they're random user tests, we should consider that it might not be
accurate.
Who will merge these tests into the standard tree?
Who merges patches sent to the list into the standard tree? In my
experience, it's almost anyone.
Just looking for more information,
-- c
