Hi Thomas,

Quoting Thomas Zander (zander@javalobby.org):
> On Sunday 11 April 2004 14:22, David Lichteblau wrote:
> > Quoting Thomas Zander (zander@javalobby.org):
> > > I hope you'll agree that its more important to have people creating
> > > patches and moving the project forward then to always have a 100%
> > > correct CVS. (problems can be fixed post-commit)
> > No!
> David; I have not seen you before; an introduction might be in place.
> After we found out what your part in Mauve is;

I'm just yet another Mauve user.

> would you care to elaborate on your position?

Sure: "Problems should be fixed pre-commit."


BTW, to ask a technical question, is the "tagging" of Mauve testcases
used in practice?  Much of the complexity of the existing build systems
stems from the fact that tests are selected by a non-trivial script.  If
not for the tags, something like "find . -name \*.java" would be enough
to select all files.

Mark Wielaard sent an analysis of test suite failures for current
Classpath, which I found very helpful (thanks!).  When I am interested
to see whether the current Classpath version "works", which tags should
be used?  All of them, right?  

Unless I misunderstood Thomas' question, he could not compile all of
Mauve because his script tried to compile _everything_, as opposed to
those files usually chosen by the standard build system.  I would find
it a little confusing if Mauve provided two build systems, one which
uses tags and one which does not.


Thanks,
David