From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21911 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2004 18:57:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21903 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2004 18:57:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO blackhole.ipv6.fhtw-berlin.de) (141.45.4.9) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Apr 2004 18:57:46 -0000 Received: from threejane.lichteblau.com ([141.45.32.5]) by blackhole.ipv6.fhtw-berlin.de with smtp (Exim 3.31 #15) id 1BCk9J-000DIi-00 for mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com; Sun, 11 Apr 2004 20:57:45 +0200 Received: (qmail 28821 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Apr 2004 18:57:47 -0000 From: "David Lichteblau" Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:57:00 -0000 To: Thomas Zander , mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Mauve patches. Message-ID: <20040411185745.GD21097@lichteblau.com> References: <200404060956.14298.zander@javalobby.org> <200404110848.06673.zander@javalobby.org> <20040411122255.GC21097@lichteblau.com> <200404111919.24816.zander@javalobby.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200404111919.24816.zander@javalobby.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 --2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1510 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?=20=20 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 --2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAeZUpiGoiD4YyHUgRAj/5AJ4izVAjzw+i5DBYYhveaG4ydo5jcACfRzgH wWB7qvp2SZfdQHhF9UBZkys= =MiQF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2Z2K0IlrPCVsbNpk--