Hi,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de> wrote: > > > > > 2015-02-08 13:01 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com>: > >> Hi Nicolai, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaih...@web.de> wrote: >> >>> 14850 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?14850> Integrate GTools >>> #development >>> "From this version onwards the development version should be >>> integrated." >>> >>> Is this a good idea? Does the #development version always include *all* >>> the latest >>> changes, because after Andrei opened >>> 14866 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?14866> Integrate GTools >>> (which got integrated in 40475) >>> I uploaded some changes for issue >>> 14608 <https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?14608> >>> ClassTest>>#testClassRespectsPolymorphismWithTrait failing due to >>> Spotter methods >>> I set the status to "Fix Review needed", >>> >> but my changes are integrated in 40475 too! >>> >> >> I think that in the current situation, it is actually a good idea. And >> yes, the integration does include all latest versions of GT-related >> packages. >> >> Before changing to development, we required a stable release for the >> integration. That implied: >> 1. creating a stable release and >> 2. integrating it in the Pharo through a separate issue. >> >> Yet, in GT we all work on the very latest version, and creating a >> "stable" release is somewhat artificial given the speed at which things are >> changing now. Creating the "stable" version also led to delays between a >> fix in GT and an integration in Pharo (sometimes measured in weeks). >> > > It still takes weeks. the last GToolkitCore integration was 3 weeks ago. > That's because of two reasons: (1) we did some changes that took longer, and (2) by the time we were ready to commit the jenkins went off. So, this time it is not so representative. We do want this to happen faster. > >> So, in the case of GT requiring the stable release did not provide any >> added value, but it has the negative consequence of delays. >> >> I am not satisfied with the way external packages are handled. >>> 1. if there is not one slice/changeset per issue, it is even less likely >>> someone will >>> review the changes. >>> 2. you don't know who works when on a issue. They are solved in a bulk. >>> 3. a new configuration might not only includes bugfixes but new features >>> as well. >>> 4. often we have unbound globals / undeclared references or other test >>> failures. >>> >>> Can we use the build server for those external projects (like >>> GToolkitCore, Athens, TxText), >>> and that if a project makes a new configuration, it uses the same >>> issue validator for loading and testing that configuration? >>> >> >> We already have a GToollkitCore job, but it only runs the GT tests. >> Perhaps this is not enough? >> https://ci.inria.fr/moose/job/gtoolkitcore/ >> > > It would be nice if it runs some of the image validation tests > ReleaseTest > ClassTest > BehaviorTest > ... > It now runs the ReleaseTest. We can add the ClassTest and BehaviorTest. What other tests should we add? Doru > That way we can we see early enough, if GT-Extensions will break some > validation rules (unresovled externals / Obsolete classes / Polymorphism > Trait/Class) > > > >> >> But, could the Monkey not be able to run all tests before an integration >> of the development version? >> > > I don't know if the Monkey can load Configurations. > > >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
