Hi,
One of my action items from the release team meeting at GUADEC was to
go through the GNOME goals page to deal with the backlog of unapproved
goals. (I never said *when* I would do it. ;) Please review this list
and complain if you don't agree with my choices.
It's worth mentioning that some o
os Soriano
Original Message
Subject: GNOME goal candidates
Local Time: March 1, 2017 12:12 AM
UTC Time: February 28, 2017 11:12 PM
From: mcatanz...@gnome.org
To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
Hi,
One of my action items from the release team meeting at GUADEC was to
go through the GNOME
Ah yeah, don't cancel your plans for nautilus.
Regarding coverage. Most of our modules are core modules; we have a lot
of them. I don't think we have the resources right now to write tests
and obtain high coverage for more than a couple of these modules,
unfortunately. I'd like to keep the GNOME g
On 02/28/2017 04:05 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Regarding installed tests. The benefits of installed tests versus make
check tests are not very clear to me. I don't think it should be
necessary to install the tests in order to be able to run and test
applications. That indicates a failure somewh
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:10 PM Christian Hergert
wrote:
> On 02/28/2017 04:05 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Regarding installed tests. The benefits of installed tests versus make
> > check tests are not very clear to me. I don't think it should be
> > necessary to install the tests in order t
Thanks for picking this up, Michael!
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
...
> I want to immediately approve the following three goals, provided that
> their sponsors are willing to update the (now very stale) lists of
> affected modules:
>
...
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/HeaderBars (A
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 18:05 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Ah yeah, don't cancel your plans for nautilus.
>
> Regarding coverage. Most of our modules are core modules; we have a
> lot
> of them. I don't think we have the resources right now to write tests
> and obtain high coverage for more tha
Hi,
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 17:12 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi,
*snip*
> GtkBuilder validation looks like more gook to add to our Automake
> files, when we really want less gook there. Even if it's only a small
> amount of code, I'd rather it be implemented as an autoconf archive
> macro a
On Wed, 01 Mar 2017 at 10:22:56 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> • installed-tests allows reverse-dependency testing: find test
> failures from new versions of libraries your project depends on,
> without having to rebuild your project (useful in a CI environment)
This is particularly interesting
Hi;
On 1 March 2017 at 02:44, wrote:
> properly. Therefore I'd love to see the installed tests run automatically in
> Continuous or something like that, which is more the intended environment
> for running them in.
They already do: that's what the "integration test" phase is.
Sadly, there has
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 09:08 +, Allan Day wrote:
> I don't think this one is particularly needed any more.
OK, I'll drop it then. I agree, it no longer seems relevant.
Michael
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://m
It sounds like most everyone else supports installed tests. OK, then.
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:22 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> I agree that developers need to be engaged with adding more unit
> tests
> and code coverage if such a goal is to be useful. I wonder if making
> it
> a goal would kick
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 07:26 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> It sounds like most everyone else supports installed tests. OK, then.
>
> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:22 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> > I agree that developers need to be engaged with adding more unit
> > tests
> > and code coverage if
On 1 March 2017 at 13:26, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> It sounds like most everyone else supports installed tests. OK, then.
>
> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:22 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
>> I agree that developers need to be engaged with adding more unit
>> tests
>> and code coverage if such a goal
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 13:40 +, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On 1 March 2017 at 13:26, Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
> > It sounds like most everyone else supports installed tests. OK,
> > then.
> >
> > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 10:22 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> > > I agree that developers need to be
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 07:26:19AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> This is the other thing. The goals should be achievable, something we
> can look at in a year or two and say "all apps meet the goal" and close
> it, not a longstanding epic that stays open forever. The installed
> tests and cover
OK, you all have changed my mind. I guess installed tests should be a
goal.
Do we want to do this for coverage as well...?
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 08:31:24AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> OK, you all have changed my mind. I guess installed tests should be a
> goal.
>
> Do we want to do this for coverage as well...?
https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/AddCodeCoverage
The page needs to be updated for AX_
-- Original Message
Subject: Re: GNOME goal candidates
Local Time: March 1, 2017 8:05 PM
UTC Time: March 1, 2017 7:05 PM
From: swil...@gnome.org
To: desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 08:31:24AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> OK, you all have changed my mind. I gue
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 14:22 -0500, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-
list wrote:
> I think installed test etc it's not going to happen or be maintained
> if we don't enable coverage with it too. I think that's the actual
> trick that will keep us up with the initiative.
>
> So I would go with both
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 03:12:17PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 14:22 -0500, Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-
> list wrote:
> > I think installed test etc it's not going to happen or be maintained
> > if we don't enable coverage with it too. I think that's the actual
> >
On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 12:36 +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> I can take ownership of:
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/AddCodeCoverage
>
> I will update the description.
OK. Go ahead and move it to the approved list goals list once you've
updated the list of modules, since it's bee
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 08:58:26AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 12:36 +0100, Sébastien Wilmet wrote:
> > I can take ownership of:
> > https://wiki.gnome.org/Initiatives/GnomeGoals/AddCodeCoverage
> >
> > I will update the description.
>
> OK. Go ahead and move it to the
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:31:24AM +, Philip Withnall wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 17:12 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > GtkBuilder validation looks like more gook to add to our Automake
> > files, when we really want less gook there. Even if it's only a small
> > amount of code, I'd rath
24 matches
Mail list logo
