2013/5/22 Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> > > On 2013-05-22, at 21:04, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On May 22, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 22 May 2013 10:38, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.duca...@inria.fr> > wrote: > >>> I would use > >>> > >>> TextModelCore > >>> TextModelExtensions > >>> > >>> TextModelCore-Tests > >>> > >>> No extra dash in the middle. > >> > >> nooooo :) > >> > >> But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good. > >> For package: > >> > >> Package-Name-Tick-Tack > >> > >> tests should be in: > >> > >> Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests > >> > >> This convention used everywhere in pharo. > > > > Please do not do that :). > > > > If you do that, publishing Package-Name-Tick-Tack will publish the code > from Package-Name-Tick-Tack-Tests, too :). Why? Because we have a lovely > implicit one-to-many mapping. > > > > So, the pattern I know of is to put the Tests as a discriminator before > the variable part of your code. So, something like: > > - BaseName-Core > > - BaseName-Tests-Core > > > > But, the rule I apply more recently for code is to use - only for > categories, and camel case for the Monticello packages. Like this we also > document what is the unit of publishing, thus when you look into the code > browser we also know what is mapped on a Monticello package. > > I would love to change that rule. I think Tests have the same value as the > code itself. > The only reason to not load the code is the load time for the > configuration. Which is > basically is unimportant if you have a CI server preparing images for you. > > I can only speak for smaller projects, but I really do not sea a reason to > not load tests... >
Because tests not needed to run your application.
