On 23 May 2013, at 10:19, Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu wrote:
On 23 May 2013, at 10:12, Norbert Hartl norb...@hartl.name wrote:
Am 23.05.2013 um 09:53 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe s...@stfx.eu:
Hmm, there are different views possible on this.
Absolutely!
We should never give
so that means nobody *actually* loads code without tests? :D (evil laugh).
But i do not argue about what is the be best deployment scenario.
I am arguing about leaving developers to choose:
- if (s)he wants to deploy with tests or not, it should be up to him.
it's also up to him to
-
Am 25.05.2013 um 13:22 schrieb Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com:
On 25 May 2013 11:44, Camillo Bruni camillobr...@gmail.com wrote:
so that means nobody *actually* loads code without tests? :D (evil laugh).
But i do not argue about what is the be best deployment scenario.
I am arguing
Yes, I think this is good at this point.
When the mapping will disappear, things will become simpler.
Doru
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Denis Kudriashov dionisi...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/5/22 Tudor Girba tu...@tudorgirba.com
So, the pattern I know of is to put the Tests as a
Am 23.05.2013 um 02:35 schrieb Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com:
ProjectName-Core
ProjectName-Extras
ProjectName-Tests
That approach has a limited scope. Because we match by prefix you have to do
-Core and not just ProjectName. In a decent amount of projects -Core and
-Extras will grow and
technically yes, but you do not need many things to run the code:
- class comments
- method comments
- any documentation in general
And I don't have it at production because I don't have changes file here.
yet you load them. so I wonder if it makes sense to even load tests
technically yes, but you do not need many things to run the code:
- class comments
- method comments
- any documentation in general
yet you load them. so I wonder if it makes sense to even load tests
separately?
for me there is one big reason to put tests in separate package:
Not even for Moose it makes sense to deploy without tests :)
Doru
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Camillo Bruni camillobr...@gmail.comwrote:
technically yes, but you do not need many things to run the code:
- class comments
- method comments
- any documentation in general
And
Am 23.05.2013 um 09:43 schrieb Camillo Bruni camillobr...@gmail.com:
On 2013-05-23, at 09:35, Norbert Hartl norb...@hartl.name wrote:
Am 23.05.2013 um 09:18 schrieb Camillo Bruni camillobr...@gmail.com:
technically yes, but you do not need many things to run the code:
- class
I would use
TextModelCore
TextModelExtensions
TextModelCore-Tests
No extra dash in the middle.
Stef
On May 21, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Denis Kudriashov dionisi...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/5/21 stephane ducasse stephane.duca...@free.fr
On May 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Denis
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.
no :)
But for tests, i +1, the names are not very good.
For package:
Package-Name-Tick-Tack
tests should be in:
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
On May 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Denis Kudriashov dionisi...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/5/20 stephane ducasse stephane.duca...@free.fr
Hello.
New TxText version 0.8 is ready:
- editor stuff extracted to separate packages TxText-Editor and
TxTextTests-Editor
may be you should call the
Denis Kudriashov wrote:
2013/5/20 Igor Stasenko siguc...@gmail.com
On 19 May 2013 22:01, Denis Kudriashov dionisi...@gmail.com wrote:
TxInsertModeEditDecorator - input with "insert mode" where any new character replace next one.
insert mode
I make changes which you suggest. So new version 0.9 published
Renames:
TxNoneEditDecorator-TxNullEditDecorator
TxInsertModeEditDecorator-TxOverwriteModeEditDecorator
And new TxSecretEditDecorator for password like fields.
Best regards,
Denis
2013/5/21 b...@openinworld.com
**
Denis
Hi
2013/5/21 p...@highoctane.be p...@highoctane.be
Why not TxBaseEditDecorator ?
For me null (or non) prefix better fit general idea about edit decorators.
Edit decorators executes specific actions on text to perform basic edit
operations. TxNullEditDecorator is doing nothing except basic
2013/5/21 b...@openinworld.com
I agree with Igor on this one. The insert key toggles between Insert
Mode and Overwrite Mode - but the key is not the mode - it only
triggers the transition between the two modes.The perception that the
insert key is more strongly related Overwrite Mode is
2013/5/21 stephane ducasse stephane.duca...@free.fr
On May 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM, Denis Kudriashov dionisi...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/5/20 stephane ducasse stephane.duca...@free.fr
Hello.
New TxText version 0.8 is ready:
- editor stuff extracted to separate packages TxText-Editor and
Use Nautilus to generate them, so you will not have to think about it :)
(and you can blame someone else in case of bad naming ^^)
Ben
On May 21, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Denis Kudriashov dionisi...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/5/21 stephane ducasse stephane.duca...@free.fr
On May 21, 2013, at 9:00 AM,
On 19 May 2013 22:01, Denis Kudriashov dionisi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello.
New TxText version 0.8 is ready:
- editor stuff extracted to separate packages TxText-Editor and
TxTextTests-Editor
- edit decorators implemented:
TxNoneEditDecorator- basic editing
then maybe it should be named as
20 matches
Mail list logo
